OBJECTIVES: Drug eluting stents (DES) used to treat coronary lesions reduce rates of in-stent restenosis and therefore the need for repeat revascularization compared to bare metal stents (BMS). DES, however, are considerably more expensive than BMS. We evaluated whether DES are a cost-effective alternative for BMS. METHODS: Reports of Health Technology Assessment agencies were assessed and a systematic review of economic evaluations comparing DES with BMS was performed. RESULTS: Nineteen full economic evaluations were identified. Some studies indicate that DES may be cost-effective or even cost-saving in specific patients, when used for coronary lesions with a high propensity of restenosis such as long lesions, lesions in narrow vessels, or in patients with diabetes. Other studies mention DES is not cost effective at all with ICERs of more than 200,000 Canadian dollar per QALY gained. One of the main determining factors is the influence of protocol mandated angiographic follow-up in RCTs. The risk for a re-intervention using BMS ranges from 5% to 14% in registries and is much smaller than reported in RCTs (up to 30%). As a result, the absolute reduction in repeat revascularization by DES compared to BMS is smaller in real life. Moreover, using DES instead of BMS does not increase survival or decrease myocardial infarctions. The combination of (a) a higher cost (>euro700) for DES versus BMS; (b) no life-years gained; (c) a relatively small absolute reduction in repeat procedures; and (d) a small improvement in QoL for a short period (less than 0.15 during the first month after the re-intervention), results in unfavourable cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Although several studies conclude that DES may be cost effective in large subgroups of patients, under real-world conditions, the cost-effectiveness of DES is unfavourable in comparison with BMS.
OBJECTIVES: Drug eluting stents (DES) used to treat coronary lesions reduce rates of in-stent restenosis and therefore the need for repeat revascularization compared to bare metal stents (BMS). DES, however, are considerably more expensive than BMS. We evaluated whether DES are a cost-effective alternative for BMS. METHODS: Reports of Health Technology Assessment agencies were assessed and a systematic review of economic evaluations comparing DES with BMS was performed. RESULTS: Nineteen full economic evaluations were identified. Some studies indicate that DES may be cost-effective or even cost-saving in specific patients, when used for coronary lesions with a high propensity of restenosis such as long lesions, lesions in narrow vessels, or in patients with diabetes. Other studies mention DES is not cost effective at all with ICERs of more than 200,000 Canadian dollar per QALY gained. One of the main determining factors is the influence of protocol mandated angiographic follow-up in RCTs. The risk for a re-intervention using BMS ranges from 5% to 14% in registries and is much smaller than reported in RCTs (up to 30%). As a result, the absolute reduction in repeat revascularization by DES compared to BMS is smaller in real life. Moreover, using DES instead of BMS does not increase survival or decrease myocardial infarctions. The combination of (a) a higher cost (>euro700) for DES versus BMS; (b) no life-years gained; (c) a relatively small absolute reduction in repeat procedures; and (d) a small improvement in QoL for a short period (less than 0.15 during the first month after the re-intervention), results in unfavourable cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Although several studies conclude that DES may be cost effective in large subgroups of patients, under real-world conditions, the cost-effectiveness of DES is unfavourable in comparison with BMS.
Authors: S N Willich; F Müller-Riemenschneider; D McBride; S Silber; K-H Kuck; C A Nienaber; S Schneider; J Senges; B Brüggenjürgen Journal: Herz Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 1.443