Dataset Information

Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sirolimus-eluting stents have recently been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis among patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Given that sirolimus-eluting stents cost about 4 times as much as conventional stents, and considering the volume of PCI procedures, the decision to use sirolimus-eluting stents has large economic implications.

Methods

We performed an economic evaluation comparing treatment with sirolimus-eluting and conventional stents in patients undergoing PCI and in subgroups based on age and diabetes mellitus status. The probabilities of transition between clinical states and estimates of resource use and health-related quality of life were derived from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) database. Information on effectiveness was based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing sirolimus-eluting and conventional stents.

Results

Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in the baseline analysis was Can58,721 dollars. Sirolimus-eluting stents were more cost-effective in patients with diabetes and in those over 75 years of age, the costs per QALY gained being 44,135 dollars and 40,129 dollars, respectively. The results were sensitive to plausible variations in the cost of stents, the estimate of the effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents and the assumption that sirolimus-eluting stents would prevent the need for cardiac catheterizations in the subsequent year when no revascularization procedure was performed to treat restenosis.

Interpretation

The use of sirolimus-eluting stents is associated with a cost per QALY that is similar to or higher than that of other accepted medical forms of therapy and is associated with a significant incremental cost. Sirolimus-eluting stents are more economically attractive for patients who are at higher risk of restenosis or at a high risk of death if a second revascularization procedure were to be required.

SUBMITTER: Shrive FM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC545758 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents.

Shrive Fiona M FM Manns Braden J BJ Galbraith P Diane PD Knudtson Merril L ML Ghali William A WA

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20050201 3

<h4>Background</h4>Sirolimus-eluting stents have recently been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis among patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Given that sirolimus-eluting stents cost about 4 times as much as conventional stents, and considering the volume of PCI procedures, the decision to use sirolimus-eluting stents has large economic implications.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed an economic evaluation comparing treatment with sirolimus-eluting and conventional stents ...[more]

PMID: 15684117

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background The choice of optimal drug-eluting stent therapy for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with DM. Methods and Results In a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization) trial (NCT01443104), patients randomly assigned to ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES were stratified according to diabetic status. The primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, at 5 years. Among 2119 patients, 486 (22.9%) presented with DM. Compared with individuals without DM, patients with DM were older and had a greater baseline cardiac risk profile. In patients with DM, target lesion failure at 5 years occurred in 74 patients (cumulative incidence, 31.0%) treated with BP-SES and 57 patients (25.8%) treated with DP-EES (risk ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.87-1.73 [P=0.24]). In individuals without DM, target lesion failure at 5 years occurred in 124 patients (16.8%) treated with BP-SES and 132 patients (16.8%) treated with DP-EES (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77-1.26 [P=0.90; P for interaction=0.31]). Cumulative 5-year incidence rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis were similar among patients with DM treated with BP-SES or DP-EES. There was no interaction between diabetic status and treatment effect of BP-SES versus DP-EES. Conclusions In a prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, we found no difference in clinical outcomes throughout 5 years between patients with DM treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

Project description:BackgroundThe relative short-, long- and overall-term efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES, Cypher) compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES, Taxus) in large head-to-head comparisons still remain to be defined.MethodsWe searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for articles comparing outcomes of interest between SES and PES without language restriction. Short- (≤ 1 year), long- (>1 year), and overall-term (the longest follow-up of each study) outcomes were evaluated. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Other outcomes of interest were target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction, all-cause death, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), restenosis and late lumen loss.ResultsSeventy-six studies including more than 15000 patients in randomized controlled trials and over 70000 patients in adjusted observational studies were included. At overall-term follow-up, SES significantly reduced TLR (relative risk [RR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.76), TVR (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54-0.83), MACE (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.72-0.87), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.99), in-segment restenosis (RR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.38-0.65), and in-segment late lumen loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.19; 95% CI: -0.24--0.14) in randomized controlled trials compared with PES. In addition, lower rates of death (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.83-1.00), any stent thrombosis (RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.45-0.86), definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.77) were found in patients receiving SES in adjusted observational studies. Largely similar results were found at short- and long-term follow-up, and in patients with diabetes, acute myocardial infarction or long lesions.ConclusionsSES significantly reduced the short-, long- and overall-term risk of TLR/TVR, MACE, and restenosis, and overall-term risk of myocardial infarction in randomized controlled trials, as compared with PES. Lower rates of death and stent thrombosis were also observed in observational studies in SES-treated patients.

Dataset Information

Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets