Coronary artery bypass graft surgery was more costly than DES-PCI over a lifetime horizon but yielded a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $16,537 per QALY gained.
RCT (n=1,800)
randomized
1,800 patients with left main or 3-vessel coronary artery disease randomized to CABG or DES-PCI, with 5-year in-trial data extrapolated over a lifetime horizon to assess cost-effectiveness.
Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) vs Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI)
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained) — ICER $16,537/QALY
Effect estimate: ICER $16,537/QALY
BACKGROUND: The Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial demonstrated that in patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) was associated with a lower rate of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization compared with percutaneous coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI) ). The long-term cost-effectiveness of these strategies is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2007, 1800 patients with left main or 3-vessel coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=897) or DES-PCI (n=903). Costs were assessed from a US perspective, and health state utilities were evaluated with the EuroQOL questionnaire. A patient-level microsimulation model based on the 5-year in-trial data was used to extrapolate costs, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy over a lifetime horizon. Although initial procedural costs were 3415 per patient lower with CABG, total hospitalization costs were 10 036 per patient higher. Over the next 5 years, follow-up costs were higher with DES-PCI as a result of more frequent hospitalizations, revascularization procedures, and higher medication costs. Over a lifetime horizon, CABG remained more costly than DES-PCI, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was favorable (16 537 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) and remained <20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year in most bootstrap replicates. Results were consistent across a wide range of assumptions about the long-term effect of CABG versus DES-PCI on events and costs. In patients with left main disease or a SYNTAX score ≤22, however, DES-PCI was economically dominant compared with CABG, although these findings were less certain. CONCLUSIONS: For most patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, CABG is a clinically and economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with DES-PCI. However, among patients with less complex disease, DES-PCI may be preferred on both clinical and economic grounds. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: www. clinicaltrials. gov. Unique identifier: NCT00114972.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
David J. Cohen
General Cardiology
Ruben L.J. Osnabrugge
Cardiac Surgery
Elizabeth A. Magnuson
Boston University
Circulation
Harvard University
Saint Luke's Hospital
Boston Scientific (United States)
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Cohen et al. (Sat,) conducted a rct in 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (n=1,800). Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) vs. Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI) was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained) (ICER $16,537/QALY). Coronary artery bypass graft surgery was more costly than DES-PCI over a lifetime horizon but yielded a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $16,537 per QALY gained.
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a2083ae23a8c2fe81f89470 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.114.009985