OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of drug eluting stents (DES) compared with conventional stents for treatment of symptomatic coronary artery disease in the UK. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis of audit based patient subgroups by means of a simple economic model. SETTING: Tertiary care. PARTICIPANTS: 12 month audit data for 2884 patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting at the Cardiothoracic Centre Liverpool between January 2000 and December 2002. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk of repeat revascularisation within 12 months of index procedure and reduction in risk from use of DES. Economic modelling was used to estimate the cost-utility ratio and threshold price premium. RESULTS: Four factors were identified for patients undergoing elective surgery (n = 1951) and two for non-elective surgery (n = 933) to predict risk of repeat revascularisation within 12 months. Most patients fell within the subgroup with lowest risk (57% of the elective surgery group with 5.6% risk and 91% of the non-elective surgery group with 9.9% risk). Modelled cost-utility ratios were acceptable for only one group of high risk patients undergoing non-elective surgery (only one patient in audit data). Restricting the number of DES for each patient improved results marginally: 4% of stents could then be drug eluting on economic grounds. The threshold price premium justifying 90% substitution of conventional stents was estimated to be 112 pound sterling (212 USD, 162 pound sterling) (sirolimus stents) or 89 pound sterling (167 USD, 130 pound sterling) (paclitaxel stents). CONCLUSIONS: At current UK prices, DES are not cost effective compared with conventional stents except for a small minority of patients. Although the technology is clearly effective, general substitution is not justified unless the price premium falls substantially.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of drug eluting stents (DES) compared with conventional stents for treatment of symptomatic coronary artery disease in the UK. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis of audit based patient subgroups by means of a simple economic model. SETTING: Tertiary care. PARTICIPANTS: 12 month audit data for 2884 patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting at the Cardiothoracic Centre Liverpool between January 2000 and December 2002. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk of repeat revascularisation within 12 months of index procedure and reduction in risk from use of DES. Economic modelling was used to estimate the cost-utility ratio and threshold price premium. RESULTS: Four factors were identified for patients undergoing elective surgery (n = 1951) and two for non-elective surgery (n = 933) to predict risk of repeat revascularisation within 12 months. Most patients fell within the subgroup with lowest risk (57% of the elective surgery group with 5.6% risk and 91% of the non-elective surgery group with 9.9% risk). Modelled cost-utility ratios were acceptable for only one group of high risk patients undergoing non-elective surgery (only one patient in audit data). Restricting the number of DES for each patient improved results marginally: 4% of stents could then be drug eluting on economic grounds. The threshold price premium justifying 90% substitution of conventional stents was estimated to be 112 pound sterling (212 USD, 162 pound sterling) (sirolimus stents) or 89 pound sterling (167 USD, 130 pound sterling) (paclitaxel stents). CONCLUSIONS: At current UK prices, DES are not cost effective compared with conventional stents except for a small minority of patients. Although the technology is clearly effective, general substitution is not justified unless the price premium falls substantially.
Authors: P W Serruys; F Unger; J E Sousa; A Jatene; H J Bonnier; J P Schönberger; N Buller; R Bonser; M J van den Brand; L A van Herwerden; M A Morel; B A van Hout Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-04-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P N Ruygrok; R Melkert; M A Morel; J A Ormiston; F W Bär; F Fernandez-Avilès; H Suryapranata; K D Dawkins; C Hanet; P W Serruys Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1999-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: F Kiemeneij; P W Serruys; C Macaya; W Rutsch; G Heyndrickx; P Albertsson; J Fajadet; V Legrand; P Materne; J Belardi; U Sigwart; A Colombo; J J Goy; C M Disco; M A Morel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mohan N Babapulle; Lawrence Joseph; Patrick Bélisle; James M Brophy; Mark J Eisenberg Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Aug 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David J Cohen; Ameet Bakhai; Chunxue Shi; Louise Githiora; Tara Lavelle; Ronna H Berezin; Martin B Leon; Jeffrey W Moses; Joseph P Carrozza; James P Zidar; Richard E Kuntz Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-07-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Marie-Claude Morice; Patrick W Serruys; J Eduardo Sousa; Jean Fajadet; Ernesto Ban Hayashi; Marco Perin; Antonio Colombo; G Schuler; Paul Barragan; Giulio Guagliumi; Ferenc Molnàr; Robert Falotico Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R Hill; A Bagust; A Bakhai; R Dickson; Y Dündar; A Haycox; R Mujica Mota; A Reaney; D Roberts; P Williamson; T Walley Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Yolanda Bravo Vergel; Stephen Palmer; Christian Asseburg; Elisabeth Fenwick; Mark de Belder; Keith Abrams; Mark Sculpher Journal: Heart Date: 2007-08-23 Impact factor: 5.994