Thathya V Ariyaratne1, Cheng-Hon Yap1,2, Zanfina Ademi1,3, Frank Rosenfeldt4, Stephen J Duffy1,5, Baki Billah1, Christopher M Reid1,6. 1. Centre of Cardiovascular Research & Education in Therapeutics, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine (DEPM), Monash University, 6th Floor, 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia. 2. Cardiothoracic Unit, Geelong Hospital, Geelong, VIC, Australia. 3. Institute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Cardiac Surgical Research Unit, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery,Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. Heart Centre, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 6. School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Abstract
Aims: The suitability of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), for patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) remains a contentious topic. While the body of evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of these revascularization strategies is growing, there is limited evidence concerning their long-term cost-effectiveness. We aim to critically appraise the body of literature investigating the cost-effectiveness of CABG compared with PCI using stents, and to assess the quality of the economic evidence available. Methods and results: A systematic review was performed across six electronic databases; Medline, Embase, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the health technology assessment database, and the Cochrane Library. All studies comparing economic attractiveness of CABG vs. PCI using bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES) in balanced groups of patients were considered. Sixteen studies were included. These comprised studies of conventional CABG vs. BMS (n = 8), or DES (n = 4); off-pump CABG vs. BMS (n = 2), or DES (n = 1); and minimally invasive direct CABG vs. BMS (n = 2). The majority adopted a healthcare payer perspective (n = 14). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported across studies varied widely according to perspective and time horizon. Favourable lifetime ICERs were reported for CABG in three trials. For patients with left main coronary artery disease, however, DES was reported as the dominant (more effective and cost-saving) strategy in one study. Conclusion: Overall, CABG rather than PCI was the favoured cost-effective treatment for complex MVCAD in the long term. While the evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of DES compared with CABG is growing, there is a need for more evaluations adopting a societal perspective, and time horizons of a lifetime or 10 or more years.
Aims: The suitability of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), for patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) remains a contentious topic. While the body of evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of these revascularization strategies is growing, there is limited evidence concerning their long-term cost-effectiveness. We aim to critically appraise the body of literature investigating the cost-effectiveness of CABG compared with PCI using stents, and to assess the quality of the economic evidence available. Methods and results: A systematic review was performed across six electronic databases; Medline, Embase, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the health technology assessment database, and the Cochrane Library. All studies comparing economic attractiveness of CABG vs. PCI using bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES) in balanced groups of patients were considered. Sixteen studies were included. These comprised studies of conventional CABG vs. BMS (n = 8), or DES (n = 4); off-pump CABG vs. BMS (n = 2), or DES (n = 1); and minimally invasive direct CABG vs. BMS (n = 2). The majority adopted a healthcare payer perspective (n = 14). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported across studies varied widely according to perspective and time horizon. Favourable lifetime ICERs were reported for CABG in three trials. For patients with left main coronary artery disease, however, DES was reported as the dominant (more effective and cost-saving) strategy in one study. Conclusion: Overall, CABG rather than PCI was the favoured cost-effective treatment for complex MVCAD in the long term. While the evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of DES compared with CABG is growing, there is a need for more evaluations adopting a societal perspective, and time horizons of a lifetime or 10 or more years.
Authors: Andrea Perrotti; Fiona Ecarnot; Francesco Monaco; Enrica Dorigo; Palmiero Monteleone; Guillaume Besch; Sidney Chocron Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Mitchell N Sarkies; Suzanne Robinson; Tom Briffa; Stephen J Duffy; Mark Nelson; John Beltrame; Louise Cullen; Derek Chew; Julian Smith; David Brieger; Peter Macdonald; Danny Liew; Chris Reid Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2021-04-21
Authors: Anna L Barker; Geeske Peeters; Renata T Morello; Richard Norman; Darshini Ayton; Jeffrey Lefkovits; Angela Brennan; Sue M Evans; John Zalcberg; Christopher Reid; Susannah Ahern; Sze-Ee Soh; Johannes Stoelwinder; John J McNeil Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Michelle Samuel; Jean-Claude Tardif; Paul Khairy; François Roubille; David D Waters; Jean C Grégoire; Fausto J Pinto; Aldo P Maggioni; Rafael Diaz; Colin Berry; Wolfgang Koenig; Petr Ostadal; Jose Lopez-Sendon; Habib Gamra; Ghassan S Kiwan; Marie-Pierre Dubé; Mylène Provencher; Andreas Orfanos; Lucie Blondeau; Simon Kouz; Philippe L L'Allier; Reda Ibrahim; Nadia Bouabdallaoui; Dominic Mitchell; Marie-Claude Guertin; Jacques Lelorier Journal: Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes Date: 2021-09-16