AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) compared with bare metal stents (BMSs) as the default strategy in unselected patients treated in the Rapamycin Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) Registry at 1 and 2-years following the procedure. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 508 consecutive patients with de novo lesions exclusively treated with SES were compared with 450 patients treated with BMS from the immediate preceding period. Resource use and costs of the index procedure, and clinical outcomes were prospectively recorded over a 2-year follow-up period. Follow-up costs were measured as unit costs per patient based on the incidence of clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR), to obtain cumulative costs at 1 and 2-years. Cost-effectiveness was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per TVR avoided. The use of SES cost euro 3,036 more per patient at the index procedure, driven by the price of SES. Follow-up costs after 1-year were euro 1,089 less with SES when compared with BMS, due to less TVR, resulting in a net excess cost of euro 1,968 per patient in the SES group, and reduced by a further euro 100 per patient in the second year. The incidence of death or myocardial infarction between groups was similar at 1 and 2 years. Rates of TVR in the SES and BMS groups were 3.7% vs. 10.4%, P<0.01 at 1 year, respectively; and 6.4% vs. 14.7%, P<0.001 at 2 years. The ICER per TVR avoided was euro 29,373 at 1 year, and euro 22,267 at 2 years. CONCLUSION: The use of SES, while significantly beneficial in reducing the need for repeat revascularization, was more expensive and not cost-effective in the RESEARCH registry at either 1 or 2-years when compared with BMS. On the basis of these results, in an unselected population with 1 year of follow-up, the unit price of SES would have to be euro 1,023 in order to be cost-neutral.
AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) compared with bare metal stents (BMSs) as the default strategy in unselected patients treated in the Rapamycin Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) Registry at 1 and 2-years following the procedure. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 508 consecutive patients with de novo lesions exclusively treated with SES were compared with 450 patients treated with BMS from the immediate preceding period. Resource use and costs of the index procedure, and clinical outcomes were prospectively recorded over a 2-year follow-up period. Follow-up costs were measured as unit costs per patient based on the incidence of clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR), to obtain cumulative costs at 1 and 2-years. Cost-effectiveness was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per TVR avoided. The use of SES cost euro 3,036 more per patient at the index procedure, driven by the price of SES. Follow-up costs after 1-year were euro 1,089 less with SES when compared with BMS, due to less TVR, resulting in a net excess cost of euro 1,968 per patient in the SES group, and reduced by a further euro 100 per patient in the second year. The incidence of death or myocardial infarction between groups was similar at 1 and 2 years. Rates of TVR in the SES and BMS groups were 3.7% vs. 10.4%, P<0.01 at 1 year, respectively; and 6.4% vs. 14.7%, P<0.001 at 2 years. The ICER per TVR avoided was euro 29,373 at 1 year, and euro 22,267 at 2 years. CONCLUSION: The use of SES, while significantly beneficial in reducing the need for repeat revascularization, was more expensive and not cost-effective in the RESEARCH registry at either 1 or 2-years when compared with BMS. On the basis of these results, in an unselected population with 1 year of follow-up, the unit price of SES would have to be euro 1,023 in order to be cost-neutral.