BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of cost-effectiveness analyses in the national literature comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) with bare-metal stents (BMS), at late follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) between DES and BMS in uniarterial coronariopathy. METHODS: 217 patients (130 DES and 87 BMS), with 48 months of follow-up (mean = 26 months) were assessed. PRIMARY OUTCOME: cost per prevented restenosis, with effectiveness being defined as the decrease in major events. The analytical model of decision was based on the study by Polanczyk et al. The direct costs were those used directly in the interventions. RESULTS: The sample was homogenous for age and sex. The DES was more used in diabetic patients: 59 (45.4%) vs 16 (18.4%)(p<0.0001) and with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD): 53 (40.7%) vs 13 (14.9%)(p<0.0001). The BMS was more used in simple lesions, but with worse ventricular function. The DES were implanted preferentially in proximal lesions: (p=0.0428) and the BMS in the mid-third (p=0.0001). Event-free survival: DES = 118 (90.8%) vs BMS=74 (85.0%) (p=0.19); Angina: DES=9 (6.9%) vs BMS=9 (10.3%) (NS): Clinical restenosis: DES=3 (2.3%) vs BMS=10 (10.3%) (p=0.0253). Cardiac deaths: 2 (1.5%) in DES and 3 (3.5%) in BMS (NS). COSTS: the tree of decision was modeled based on restenosis. The net benefit for the DES needed an increment of R$7,238.16. The ICER was R$131,647.84 per prevented restenosis (above the WHO threshold). CONCLUSIONS: The DES was used in more complex lesions. The clinical results were similar. The restenosis rate was higher in the BMS group. The DES was a non-cost-effective strategy.
BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of cost-effectiveness analyses in the national literature comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) with bare-metal stents (BMS), at late follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) between DES and BMS in uniarterial coronariopathy. METHODS: 217 patients (130 DES and 87 BMS), with 48 months of follow-up (mean = 26 months) were assessed. PRIMARY OUTCOME: cost per prevented restenosis, with effectiveness being defined as the decrease in major events. The analytical model of decision was based on the study by Polanczyk et al. The direct costs were those used directly in the interventions. RESULTS: The sample was homogenous for age and sex. The DES was more used in diabeticpatients: 59 (45.4%) vs 16 (18.4%)(p<0.0001) and with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD): 53 (40.7%) vs 13 (14.9%)(p<0.0001). The BMS was more used in simple lesions, but with worse ventricular function. The DES were implanted preferentially in proximal lesions: (p=0.0428) and the BMS in the mid-third (p=0.0001). Event-free survival: DES = 118 (90.8%) vs BMS=74 (85.0%) (p=0.19); Angina: DES=9 (6.9%) vs BMS=9 (10.3%) (NS): Clinical restenosis: DES=3 (2.3%) vs BMS=10 (10.3%) (p=0.0253). Cardiac deaths: 2 (1.5%) in DES and 3 (3.5%) in BMS (NS). COSTS: the tree of decision was modeled based on restenosis. The net benefit for the DES needed an increment of R$7,238.16. The ICER was R$131,647.84 per prevented restenosis (above the WHO threshold). CONCLUSIONS: The DES was used in more complex lesions. The clinical results were similar. The restenosis rate was higher in the BMS group. The DES was a non-cost-effective strategy.