Key result
DES is linked to ~€9000 in 9-month savings over CABG and lower costs versus BMS.
Why the study?
The higher cost of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents necessitated evaluation of their real economic advantage in clinical practice.
Does the use of drug-eluting stents improve cost-effectiveness compared to bare-metal stents or CABG in patients with ischemic heart disease?
Observational
Yes
Does the use of drug-eluting stents improve cost-effectiveness compared to bare-metal stents or CABG in patients with ischemic heart disease?
The real-world use of drug-eluting stents is cost-effective compared to bare-metal stents and CABG at 9 months, generating significant savings for the regional health service.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Drug-eluting stents were associated with cost savings at 9 months; hypothesis-generating for practice change pending randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: With the aim of reducing restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stents (BMSs) for the treatment of ischemic heart disease, drug-eluting stents (DESs) were introduced in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention in 2002. However, the higher cost of DES in comparison with BMS made it necessary to determine whether their use brings a real economic advantage. METHODS: In order to verify the clinical and economic benefit of DES in comparison with BMS and surgical treatment with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), the Sicily Regional Government arranged for the creation of a directory where patients receiving at least one DES (with sirolimus or with paclitaxel) were enrolled from June 2004 to February 2005. The cost-effectiveness analysis for DES was carried out by means of two decisional models: one referring to patients treated with DES who, without such a device, would have undergone CABG, and the second one referring to patients treated with DES who, without such device, would have received BMS. Cost analysis was carried out from the point of view of the SSR (Servizio Sanitario Regionale, Regional Health Service). RESULTS: The use of DES on patients destined to CABG generated average unitary differential savings of euro9003, after 9 months of follow-up, and average total differential savings of euro4 438 479. The use of DES on patients destined to BMS gave average unitary differential savings of euro1075, after 9 months of follow-up, and average total differential savings of euro1 052 425. The use of DES instead of BMS and CABG allowed SSR to make average differential savings of euro3760 per successful case. The refund threshold value of DES, setting to zero the SSR average differential savings for patients treated with DES who would otherwise have been treated with BMS, was euro2489. CONCLUSION: The medium-term results of the proposed models, tested with sensitivity analysis, demonstrate the use of DES to be justified; moreover, these results could positively influence the attitude of the SSR toward these new therapeutic strategies, which are an improvement on standard therapies, both from a clinical and a financial standpoint.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tamburino et al. (2009) conducted an observational in ischemic heart disease. Drug-eluting stents (DES) vs. Bare-metal stents (BMS) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) was evaluated on Average unitary differential savings. The use of drug-eluting stents generated average unitary differential savings of €9003 compared to CABG and €1075 compared to bare-metal stents at 9-month follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: