INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: This article examines the cost impact associated with the utilization of the Taxus drug eluting stent versus a conventional bare-metal stent for percutaneous coronary interventions in a Spanish hospital setting. METHODS: A decision analysis model has been developed to compare the intervention and re-hospitalization costs at 12 and 24 months post-intervention. The analysis considers the general patient population and a high-risk subpopulation (diabetes, small vessel, long lesion). The analysis simulates the results of the TAXUS-IV clinical trial, in a population with similar risks, with appropriate costs, and including budget impact analyses with alternative utilization scenarios. RESULTS: The expected average per patient hospital cost at 12 months was 6934 euros with Taxus and 6756 euros with bare-metal stent (and increase of 2.6%). At 24 months, per patient hospital cost was 6,991 euros for Taxus and 6887 euros for bare-metal stent (an increase of 1.5%). In the high-risk subpopulation, Taxus was overall cost saving as compared to bare-metal stent both at 12 months (decrease of 3.0%) and 24 months (decrease of 4.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of Taxus in the overall population slightly raises treatment costs, while in patients with greater risk of restenosis the treatment cost is reduced. Given the decrease in the number of repeat revascularizations with this stent, the cost-effectiveness relationship could be acceptable in the general patient population and is dominant in the high-risk subpopulation.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: This article examines the cost impact associated with the utilization of the Taxus drug eluting stent versus a conventional bare-metal stent for percutaneous coronary interventions in a Spanish hospital setting. METHODS: A decision analysis model has been developed to compare the intervention and re-hospitalization costs at 12 and 24 months post-intervention. The analysis considers the general patient population and a high-risk subpopulation (diabetes, small vessel, long lesion). The analysis simulates the results of the TAXUS-IV clinical trial, in a population with similar risks, with appropriate costs, and including budget impact analyses with alternative utilization scenarios. RESULTS: The expected average per patient hospital cost at 12 months was 6934 euros with Taxus and 6756 euros with bare-metal stent (and increase of 2.6%). At 24 months, per patient hospital cost was 6,991 euros for Taxus and 6887 euros for bare-metal stent (an increase of 1.5%). In the high-risk subpopulation, Taxus was overall cost saving as compared to bare-metal stent both at 12 months (decrease of 3.0%) and 24 months (decrease of 4.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of Taxus in the overall population slightly raises treatment costs, while in patients with greater risk of restenosis the treatment cost is reduced. Given the decrease in the number of repeat revascularizations with this stent, the cost-effectiveness relationship could be acceptable in the general patient population and is dominant in the high-risk subpopulation.