Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in patients at high or low risk of major cardiac events in the Basel Stent KostenEffektivitäts Trial (BASKET): an 18-month analysis

Cost-effectiveness of stepwise provisional versus systematic dual stenting strategies in patients with distal bifurcation left main stem lesions: economic analysis of the EBC MAIN trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with distal bifurcation left main stem lesions requiring intervention, the European Bifurcation Club Left Main Coronary Stent Study trial found a non-significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACEs, composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation) favouring the stepwise provisional strategy, compared with the systematic dual stenting.

AIMS

To estimate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of stepwise provisional versus systematic dual stenting strategies.

METHODS

Costs in France and the UK, and MACE were calculated in both groups to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Uncertainty was explored by probabilistic bootstrapping. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the healthcare provider with a time horizon of 1 year.

RESULTS

The cost difference between the two groups was €-755 (€5700 in the stepwise provisional group and €6455 in the systematic dual stenting group, p value<0.01) in France and €-647 (€6728 and €7375, respectively, p value=0.08) in the UK. The point estimates for the ICERs found that stepwise provisional strategy was cost saving and improved outcomes with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirming dominance with an 80% probability.

CONCLUSION

The stepwise provisional strategy at 1 year is dominant compared with the systematic dual stenting strategy on both economic and clinical outcomes.

Health economic consequences of optimal vs. observed guideline adherence of coronary angiography in patients with suspected obstructive stable coronary artery in Germany: a microsimulation model

AIMS

While the number of patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) is similar across European countries, Germany has the highest per capita volume of coronary angiographies (CA). This study evaluated the health economic consequences of guideline-non-adherent use of CA in patients with SCAD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

As part of the ENLIGHT-KHK trial, a prospective observational study, this microsimulation model compared the number of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and the costs of real-world use of CA with those of (assumed) complete guideline-adherent use (according to the German National Disease Management Guideline 2019). The model considered non-invasive testing, CA, revascularization, MACE (30 days after CA), and medical costs. Model inputs were obtained from the ENLIGHT-KHK trial (i.e. patients' records, a patient questionnaire, and claims data). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated by comparing the differences in costs and MACE avoided from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI). Independent on pre-test probability (PTP) of SCAD, complete guideline adherence for usage of CA would result in a slightly lower rate of MACE (-0.0017) and less cost (€-807) per person compared with real-world guideline adherence. While cost savings were shown for moderate and low PTP (€901 and €502, respectively), for a high PTP, a guideline-adherent process results in slightly higher costs (€78) compared with real-world guideline adherence. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis indicates that improving guideline adherence in clinical practice by reducing the amount of CAs in patients with SCAD would lead to cost savings for the German SHI.

Economic evaluation of restrictive vs. liberal transfusion strategy following acute myocardial infarction (REALITY): trial-based cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses

AIMS

To estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios of a restrictive vs. liberal transfusion strategy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with anaemia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients (n = 666) with AMI and haemoglobin between 7-8 and 10 g/dL recruited in 35 hospitals in France and Spain were randomly assigned to a restrictive (n = 342) or a liberal (n = 324) transfusion strategy with 1-year prospective collection of resource utilization and quality of life using the EQ5D3L questionnaire. The economic evaluation was based on 648 patients from the per-protocol population. The outcomes were 30-day and 1-year cost-effectiveness, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) averted as the effectiveness outcome. and a 1-year cost-utility ratio.The 30-day incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €33 065 saved per additional MACE averted with the restrictive vs. liberal strategy, with an 84% probability for the restrictive strategy to be cost-saving and MACE-reducing (i.e. dominant). At 1 year, the point estimate of the cost-utility ratio was €191 500 saved per quality-adjusted life year gained; however, the cumulated MACE was outside the pre-specified non-inferiority margin, resulting in a decremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a point estimate of €72 000 saved per additional MACE with the restrictive strategy.

CONCLUSION

In patients with AMI and anaemia, the restrictive transfusion strategy was dominant (cost-saving and outcome-improving) at 30 days. At 1 year, the restrictive strategy remained cost-saving, but clinical non-inferiority on MACE was no longer maintained.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02648113.

ONE SENTENCE SUMMARY

The use of a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction is associated with lower healthcare costs, but more evidence is needed to ascertain its long-term clinical impact.

Restrictive vs liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia: Rationale and design of the REALITY trial

Background

Anemia is common in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and is an independent predictor of mortality. The optimal transfusion strategy in these patients is unclear.

Hypothesis

We hypothesized that a “restrictive” transfusion strategy (triggered by hemoglobin ≤8 g/dL) is clinically noninferior to a “liberal” transfusion strategy (triggered by hemoglobin ≤10 g/dL), but is less costly.

Methods

REALITY is an international, randomized, multicenter, open‐label trial comparing a restrictive vs a liberal transfusion strategy in patients with AMI and anemia. The primary outcome is the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) at 30 days, using the primary composite clinical outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; comprising all‐cause death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, or emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia) as the effectiveness criterion. Secondary outcomes include the ICER at 1 year, and MACE (and its components) at 30 days and at 1 year.

Results

The trial aimed to enroll 630 patients. Based on estimated event rates of 11% in the restrictive group and 15% in the liberal group, this number will provide 80% power to demonstrate clinical noninferiority of the restrictive group, with a noninferiority margin corresponding to a relative risk equal to 1.25. The sample size will also provide 80% power to show the cost‐effectiveness of the restrictive strategy at a threshold of €50 000 per quality‐adjusted life year.

Conclusions

REALITY will provide important guidance on the management of patients with AMI and anemia.

Cost-Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents in Elderly Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: The SENIOR Trial

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients receive bare metal stents instead of drug-eluting stents (DES) to shorten the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). The SENIOR trial compared outcomes between these 2 types of stents combined with a short duration of DAPT. A significant decrease in the number of patients with at least 1 major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) was noted in the DES group.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this article was to perform an economic evaluation of the SENIOR trial.

METHODS

This evaluation was performed separately in 5 participating countries using pooled patient-level data from all study patients and country-specific unit costs and utility values. Costs, MACCEs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated in both arms at 1 year, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated. Uncertainty was explored by probabilistic bootstrapping.

RESULTS

A total of 1200 patients underwent randomization. The average total cost per patient was higher in the DES group. The number of MACCEs and average QALYs were not statistically different between the 2 groups. The 1-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each country of reference ranged from €13 752 to €20 511/MACCE avoided and from €42 835 to €68 231/QALY gained. The scatter plots found a wide dispersion, reflecting a large uncertainty surrounding the results. But in each country studied, 90% of the bootstrap replications indicated a higher cost for greater effectiveness for the DES group. Assuming a willingness to pay of €50 000/QALY, there was between a 40% and 50% chance that the use of DES was cost-effective in 4 countries.

CONCLUSION

The use of DES instead of bare metal stents combined with a short duration of DAPT in elderly patients induced higher cost for greater effectiveness in each of the 5 countries studied.

Long-term safety of bioresorbable scaffolds: insights from a network meta-analysis including 91 trials

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of biodegradable scaffolds and metallic stents.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed a total of 91 randomised controlled trials with a mean follow-up of 3.7 years in 105,842 patients which compared two or more coronary metallic stents or biodegradable scaffolds and reported the long-term clinical outcomes (≥2 years). Network meta-analysis showed that patients treated with the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) had a significantly higher risk of definite or probable scaffold thrombosis (ScT) compared to those treated with metallic DES. The risk of very late ScT was highest with the Absorb BVS among comparators. Pairwise conventional meta-analysis demonstrated that the elevated risk of ScT with Absorb BVS compared to cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents was consistent across the time points of ≤30 days (early), 31 days - 1 year (late) and >1 year (very late) ScT. In addition, target lesion failure rates were significantly higher in the Absorb BVS cohort, driven by both increased risk of target vessel myocardial infarction and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Absorb BVS implantation was associated with increased risk of long-term and very late ScT compared to current-generation metallic DES. The risk of ScT occurred with a rising trend beyond one year.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of surgery, angioplasty, or medical therapy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: MASS II trial

Background

The costs for treating coronary artery disease (CAD) are high worldwide. We performed a prespecified analyses of cost-effectiveness of three therapeutic strategies for multivessel CAD.

Methods

From May 1995 to May 2000, a total of 611 patients were randomly assigned to coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), n = 203; percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), n = 205; or medical treatment (MT), n = 203. This cost analysis study was based on the perspective of the Public Health Care System. Initial procedural and follow-up costs for medications, cardiology examinations, and hospitalizations for complications were calculated after randomization. Life-years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used as effectiveness measures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were obtained by using nonparametric bootstrapping methods with 5000 resamples.

Results

Initial procedural costs were lower for MT. However, the subsequent 5-year cumulative costs were lower for CABG. Compared with baseline, the three treatment options produced significant improvements in QALYs. After 5 years, PCI and CABG had better QALYs results compared with MT. The ICER results favored CABG and PCI, and favored PCI over CABG in 61% of the drawings. On the other hand, sensitivity analysis showed MT as the preferred therapy compared with CABG and PCI, in the analysis considering higher costs.

Conclusions

At 5-year follow-up, the three treatment options yielded improvements in quality of life, with comparable and acceptable costs. However, despite higher initial costs, the comparison of cost-effectiveness after 5 years of follow-up among the three treatments showed both interventions (CABG and PCI) to be cost-effective strategies compared with MT.Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN66068876, Registered 06/10/1994, http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN66068876.

One-year clinical outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention with very long (≥ 40mm) drug-eluting stent

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome of patients with diffuse coronary lesions treated with very long drug-eluting coronary stents (DES) (≥ 40 mm) over a period of one year.

Methods

This single-center prospective study enrolled a total of 343 consecutive patients (376 long stents) who underwent percutaneous coronary stent implantation with very long DES. One year clinical outcomes were analyzed. A subgroup analysis of diabetic patients was also performed.

Results

One year follow up data was available for 314 patients (91.5%). All-cause mortality was 5 (1.6%). Eleven (3.5%) patients had non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Definite / probable stent thrombosis was reported in 7 (2.2%) patients. Over one year, 3 (1%) patients underwent target lesion revascularization (TLR). The total number of target lesion failure was 9 (2.9%). The rate of target lesion failure at one year was 2.6% using one vessel per patient analysis. Two patients had ischemic stroke. Any major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was observed in 19 (6%) patients. The event rates between sirolimus and everolimus stent groups were compared - cardiac death (1.7% vs 1.5%; p = 0.911), stent thrombosis (2.5% vs 1.7%; p = 0.612), TLR (1% vs 0.8%; p = 0.878), any MACE (7% vs 4.1%; p = 0.284). Exertional dyspnea was reported by 47 (15%) patients at the end of one year. Dual antiplatelet adherence rate was 96% (n = 301 of 314).

Conclusion

Use of very long stents (≥40 mm) for diffuse coronary lesions is safe and effective with acceptably low event rates. No significant differences in event rates were observed between the types of DES used in this study (Sirolimus Vs. everolimus).

Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Coronary Stents Are Cost-Effective in Patients at High Bleeding Risk: Economic Evaluation of the LEADERS FREE Trial

AIMS

In patients at high risk of bleeding who undergo PCI the biolimus A9 polymer-free drug coated stent (DCS) has superior efficacy and safety compared to a bare metal stent (BMS). We estimated the cost effectiveness of DCS vs. BMS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Leaders FREE-based economic evaluation estimated service use and quality of life data collected prospectively. The entire trial population was analysed using cost-weights from England, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland and Spain. Country-specific QALYs were derived from EQ-5D scores. We estimated cost per event averted and per QALY gained. DCS use resulted in -0.095 cardiac deaths, target vessel MI, stent thrombosis and revascularization per patient (0.152 vs. 0.237;p<0.001). One-year QALYs were non-significantly higher in the DCS group. Total costs for the index admission were similar between groups. One-year costs using cost-weights from each of the 6 countries, including the additional €300 per DCS stent, ranged from €4,664-8,593 for DCS and €4,845-9,742 for BMS and were lower in the DCS group (England:€-428, France:€-137, Germany:€-33, Italy:€-522, Scotland:€-298, Spain:€-854).

CONCLUSIONS

The probability that DCS dominated BMS was >50% in all countries. At a threshold of €10,000 per event averted DCS had a 98% probability of being cost-effective in all 6 countries.

Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients requiring a percutaneous coronary intervention in France, using a recent meta-analysis including second-generation DES.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in the French National Health Insurance setting. Effectiveness settings were taken from a meta-analysis of 117 762 patient-years with 76 randomised trials. The main effectiveness criterion was major cardiac event-free survival. Effectiveness and costs were modelled over a 5-year horizon using a three-state Markov model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were calculated for a range of thresholds for willingness to pay per year without major cardiac event gain. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Base case results demonstrated that DES are dominant over BMS, with an increase in event-free survival and a cost-reduction of €184, primarily due to a diminution of second revascularisations, and an absence of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. These results are robust for uncertainty on one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €7000 per major cardiac event-free year gained, DES has a >95% probability of being cost-effective versus BMS.

CONCLUSIONS

Following DES price decrease, new-generation DES development and taking into account recent meta-analyses results, the DES can now be considered cost-effective regardless of selective indication in France, according to European recommendations.

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents versus bare metal stents: Results from a patient level meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Second-generation drug eluting stents (DES) may reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes compared to first-generation DES with improved cost-effectiveness when compared to bare metal stents (BMS). We aimed to conduct an economic evaluation of a cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stent (Co-Cr EES) compared with BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stent (Co-Cr EES) versus BMS in PCI.

METHODS

A Markov state transition model with a 2-year time horizon was applied from a US Medicare setting with patients undergoing PCI with Co-Cr EES or BMS. Baseline characteristics, treatment effects, and safety measures were taken from a patient level meta-analysis of 5 RCTs (n = 4,896). The base-case analysis evaluated stent-related outcomes; a secondary analysis considered the broader set of outcomes reported in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The base-case and secondary analyses reported an additional 0.018 and 0.013 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost savings of $236 and $288, respectively with Co-Cr EES versus BMS. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses and were most sensitive to the price of clopidogrel. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Co-Cr EES was associated with a greater than 99% chance of being cost saving or cost effective (at a cost per QALY threshold of $50,000) versus BMS.

CONCLUSIONS

Using data from a recent patient level meta-analysis and contemporary cost data, this analysis found that PCI with Co-Cr EES is more effective and less costly than PCI with BMS. © 2016 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Contemporary Context of Drug-Eluting Stents in Brazil: A Cost Utility Study

BACKGROUND

Although drug-eluting stents (DES) have been widely incorporated into clinical practice in developed countries, several countries restrict their use mainly because of their high cost and unfavorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DES in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) for treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD).

DESIGN

Markov model.

DATA SOURCES

Published literature, government database, and CAD patient cohort.

TARGET POPULATION

Single-vessel CAD patients.

TIME HORIZON

One year and lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Brazilian Public Health System (SUS).

INTERVENTION

Six strategies composed of percutaneous intervention with a BMS or 1 of 5 DES (paclitaxel, sirolimus, everolimus, zotarolimus, and zotarolimus resolute).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost for target vessel revascularization avoided and cost for quality-adjusted life year gained.

BASE CASE ANALYSIS

In the short-term analysis, sirolimus was the most effective and least costly among DES (ICER of I$20,642 per target vessel revascularization avoided), with all others DES dominated by sirolimus. Lifetime cumulative costs ranged from I$18,765 to I$21,400. In the base case analysis, zotarolimus resolute had the most favorable ICER among the DES (ICER I$62,761), with sirolimus, paclitaxel, and zotarolimus being absolute dominated and everolimus extended dominated by zotarolimus resolute, although all the results were above the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the gross domestic product per capita (I$35,307).

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

In deterministic sensitivity analysis, results were sensitive to cost of DES, number of stents used per patient, baseline probability, and duration of stent thrombosis risk. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a probability of 81% for BMS being the strategy of choice, with 9% for everolimus and 9% zotarolimus resolute, at the willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSION

DES is not a good value for money in SUS perspective, despite its benefit in reducing target vessel revascularization. Since the cost-effectiveness of DES is mainly driven by the stents' cost difference, they should cost less than twice the BMS price to become a cost-effective alternative.

Drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents in patients with NSTE-ACS: 2-year outcome from the randomised BASKET-PROVE trial

AIMS

The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is controversial and not yet endorsed in clinical guidelines.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was an a priori planned post hoc analysis involving 754 NSTE-ACS patients from the randomised BASKET-PROVE trial (sirolimus-eluting stent vs. everolimus-eluting stent vs. bare metal stent in large-vessel stenting). The primary endpoint was the combined two-year rate of cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary endpoints were each component of the primary endpoint, and clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and stent thrombosis. Compared to patients with BMS, those treated with SES and EES had a strong trend towards lower two-year rates of the primary endpoint (HR: 0.31 [CI: 0.11-0.90], p=0.03, and HR: 0.74 [CI: 0.44-1.24], p=0.25), and of TVR (HR: 0.58 [CI: 0.29-1.15], p=0.12) and (HR: 0.52 [CI: 0.34-0.78], p=0.002). When the SES and EES groups were combined and compared to BMS, significant reductions in both cardiovascular death/MI and TVR were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with BMS, use of DES in NSTE-ACS patients undergoing stent implantation in large vessels was associated with a reduction in both TVR and the combined endpoint consisting of cardiovascular death/MI. Thus, DES use improves both efficacy and safety. These findings support the use of DES in NSTE-ACS patients.

Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting vs. bare-metal stents in patients with coronary artery disease from the Korean National Health Insurance Database

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the use of drug-eluting stents (DESs), as compared with bare-metal stents (BMSs) in Korea.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2000 and December 2007. Subjects were stent-treated for the first time between 2004 and 2005, with four years of follow-up (2004-2007) (n=43674). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to calculate the costs of DESs compared with BMSs among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Cost-effectiveness was assessed with effectiveness defined as a reduction in major adverse cardiac events after six months and after one, two, three, and four years.

RESULTS

The total costs of a DESs were 674108 Korean won (KRW) higher than that of a BMSs at the end of the follow-up; 13635 thousand KRW per patient treated with DESs and 12960 thousand KRW per patient treated with BMSs. The ICER was 256315 per KRW/death avoided and 293090 per KRW/re-stenting avoided among the CAD patients at the end of the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The ICER for the high-risk patients was lower than that for the low-risk patients. The use of DESs is clinically more useful than the use of BMSs for CAD and myocardial infarction patients, especially for those considered to be high-risk patients in Korea.

Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in large coronary arteries of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the ICAS registry

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There are a few retrospective subgroup analyses or registries of large-vessel (≥ 3.5mm) stenting. We investigated clinical outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) in large coronary vessels.

METHODS AND SUBJECTS

Of 1100 STEMI patients registered in the Ibaraki Cardiovascular Assessment Study (ICAS) multicenter registry from April 2007 to June 2012 who underwent PCI, we enrolled 454 patients (65.8 ± 12.7 years old, 81% male) with ≥ 3.5-mm stents. We excluded 53 patients with cardiogenic shock or left main trunk lesions. The remaining 401 patients were divided into Group-D, PCI with DES (n = 184), and Group-B, PCI with BMS (n = 217). Propensity score analysis matched 1:1 according to treatment with DES (n = 101) or with BMS (n = 101). We evaluated major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and incidence of stent thrombosis (ST). MACCE was defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target-vessel revascularization (TVR), or cerebrovascular accident (CVA).

ESSENTIAL RESULTS

During a mean follow-up period of 526 days, all-cause death, MI, CVA, MACCE, and ST were not significantly different in Group-D versus Group-B (all-cause death: 4.35% vs. 4.61%, p = 0.90; MI: 0% vs. 0%; CVA: 2.72% vs. 3.23%, p = 0.76; MACCE: 15.2% vs. 20.3%, p = 0.19; and ST: 0.0% vs. 1.38%, p = 0.11). After adjusting for age, insulin use, multivessel disease, intra-aortic balloon pump use, culprit lesions, and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2), MACCE was not significantly different between the groups (odds ratio: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.40-1.23; p = 0.21). However, TVR was significantly lower in Group-D than Group-B in Kaplan-Meier analysis (p = 0.048) after propensity score matching.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSION

There was no advantage to using a DES in large vessels for preventing a hard endpoint, whereas DES use resulted in a significant reduction in TVR in the patients with STEMI in this registry.

One-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with the 38-mm Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent

This study was designed to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of the 38-mm Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES). Drug-eluting stents with long lengths are needed to ensure coverage of long lesions in some patients. Patients recruited from the RESOLUTE US and RESOLUTE Asia studies were implanted with at least one 38-mm R-ZES. Up to 2 lesions (in separate vessels) could be implanted with length ≤35 mm and a reference vessel diameter of 3.0 to 4.2 mm. The primary end point was 1-year target lesion failure, defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. The 1-year target lesion failure rate using 1 vessel per patient was compared with a performance goal (19%) derived from historical data. There were 223 patients enrolled (n = 269 lesions). The mean age was 60.9 ± 10.9 years, 79% were men, and 38% had diabetes. Target lesion failure rate using a single-vessel analysis was 4.5%, and the upper limit of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval (7.5%) was less than the performance goal of 19%. A secondary analysis using all lesions resulted in a target lesion failure rate of 5.4% (upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval, 8.6%). Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were similar between patients with and without diabetes. The rate of probable or definite stent thrombosis was 0.9%. In conclusion, the 38-mm length of the R-ZES was found to be safe and effective with a low rate of target lesion failure and stent thrombosis and no differences in outcomes between patients with and without diabetes.

A systematic literature review of cardiovascular event utilities

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) results in half of the non-communicable disease-related deaths worldwide. Rising treatment costs have increased the need for cost-utility models designed to compare the value of new and existing therapies. Cost-utility models require utilities, values representing the strength of preferences for various health states. This systematic literature review aimed to identify and evaluate utilities reported for stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and angina. In total, 83 unique studies were identified that reported utilities for these events. Approximately two-thirds reported utility values for stroke, and most used the EuroQoL five dimension to derive utilities. Utility values were lower in patients who experienced cardiovascular (CV) events than in patients who did not. The utility estimates for each condition varied greatly, likely due to differences in assessment methodologies and patient populations. This variability must be considered when choosing values for cost-utility models. Comparisons among reported utilities are further complicated by inconsistent CV event definitions.

Cost effectiveness of drug-eluting stents as compared with bare metal stents in patients with coronary artery disease

The aim of this study was to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness of replacing bare metal stents (BMS) by drug-eluting stents (DES) when using trial data and registry data. We developed a Markov model (model of cost effectiveness of coronary artery disease) in which 60-year-old patients started by undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute or subacute coronary artery disease. The patients are followed until death or 100 years of age. Data on the occurrence of events (revascularization, acute myocardial infarction, and death) were based on Scandinavian registry data. Separate analyses were conducted with data on effectiveness based on randomized controlled trials and patient registries. On using trial data, it was found that sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) yield 0.003 greater life expectancy and $3300 lower costs than do BMS (dominant strategy). Paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) yield 0.148 more life years than do SES at additional lifetime costs of $2800 ($21,400 per life year gained). On using registry data, the cost per life year gained was found to be $4900 when replacing BMS with DES. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses, on the other hand, indicate that PES only has a 50%-75% probability of being cost effective, regardless of the type of effectiveness data. DESs are cost effective with current willingness to pay for life year gains. Whether PES or SES is the most effective DES remains uncertain.

Medical therapy v. PCI in stable coronary artery disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either drug-eluting stents (DES) or bare metal stents (BMS) reduces angina and repeat procedures compared with optimal medical therapy alone. It remains unclear if these benefits are sufficient to offset their increased costs and small increase in adverse events.

OBJECTIVE

Cost utility analysis of initial medical therapy v. PCI with either BMS or DES.

DESIGN

. Markov cohort decision model. Data Sources. Propensity-matched observational data from Ontario, Canada, for baseline event rates. Effectiveness and utility data obtained from the published literature, with costs from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative.

TARGET POPULATION

Patients with stable coronary artery disease, confirmed after angiography, stratified by risk of restenosis based on diabetic status, lesion size, and lesion length. Time Horizon. Lifetime. Perspective. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Interventions. Optimal medical therapy, PCI with BMS or DES.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

of Base Case Analysis. In the overall population, medical therapy had the lowest lifetime costs at $22,952 v. $25,081 and $25,536 for BMS and DES, respectively. Medical therapy had a quality-adjusted life expectancy of 10.1 v. 10.26 QALYs for BMS, producing an ICER of $13,271/QALY. The DES strategy had a quality-adjusted life expectancy of only 10.20 QALYs and was dominated by the BMS strategy. This ranking was consistent in all groups stratified by restenosis risk, except diabetic patients with long lesions in small arteries, in whom DES was cost-effective compared with medical therapy (ICER of $18,826/QALY). Limitations. There is the possibility of residual unobserved confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with stable coronary artery disease, an initial BMS strategy is cost-effective.

Medical technology as a key driver of rising health expenditure: disentangling the relationship

Health care spending has risen steadily in most countries, becoming a concern for decision-makers worldwide. Commentators often point to new medical technology as the key driver for burgeoning expenditures. This paper critically appraises this conjecture, based on an analysis of the existing literature, with the aim of offering a more detailed and considered analysis of this relationship. Several databases were searched to identify relevant literature. Various categories of studies (eg, multivariate and cost-effectiveness analyses) were included to cover different perspectives, methodological approaches, and issues regarding the link between medical technology and costs. Selected articles were reviewed and relevant information was extracted into a standardized template and analyzed for key cross-cutting themes, ie, impact of technology on costs, factors influencing this relationship, and methodological challenges in measuring such linkages. A total of 86 studies were reviewed. The analysis suggests that the relationship between medical technology and spending is complex and often conflicting. Findings were frequently contingent on varying factors, such as the availability of other interventions, patient population, and the methodological approach employed. Moreover, the impact of technology on costs differed across technologies, in that some (eg, cancer drugs, invasive medical devices) had significant financial implications, while others were cost-neutral or cost-saving. In light of these issues, we argue that decision-makers and other commentators should extend their focus beyond costs solely to include consideration of whether medical technology results in better value in health care and broader socioeconomic benefits.

Bare-metal stenting of large coronary arteries in ST-elevation myocardial infarction is associated with low rates of target vessel revascularization

BACKGROUND

During percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed in the emergent setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), uncertainty about patients' ability to comply with 12 months dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stenting is common, and thus, selective bare-metal stent (BMS) deployment could be an attractive strategy if this achieved low target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates in large infarct-related arteries (IRAs) (≥3.5 mm).

METHODS AND RESULTS

To evaluate this hypothesis, among 1,282 patients with STEMI who underwent PCI during their initial hospitalization, we studied 1,059 patients (83%) who received BMS, of whom 512 (48%) had large IRAs ≥3.5 mm in diameter, 333 (31%) had IRAs 3 to 3.49 mm, and 214 (20%) had IRAs <3 mm. At 1 year, TVR rate in patients with BMS was 5.8% (2.2% with large BMS [≥3.5 mm], 9.2% with BMS 3-3.49 mm [intermediate], and 9.0% with BMS <3.0 mm [small], P < .001). The rates of death/reinfarction among patients with large BMS compared with intermediate BMS or small BMS were lower (6.6% vs 11.7% vs 9.0%, P = .042). Among patients who received BMS, the independent predictors of TVR at 1 year were the following: vessel diameter <3.5 mm (odds ratio [OR] 4.39 [95% CI 2.24-8.60], P < .001), proximal left anterior descending coronary artery lesions (OR 1.89 [95% CI 1.08-3.31], P = .027), hypertension (OR 2.01 [95% CI 1.17-3.438], P = .011), and prior PCI (OR 3.46 [95% CI 1.21-9.85], P = .02). The predictors of death/myocardial infarction at 1 year were pre-PCI cardiogenic shock (OR 8.16 [95% CI 4.16-16.01], P < .001), age ≥65 years (OR 2.63 [95% CI 1.58-4.39], P < .001), left anterior descending coronary artery culprit lesions (OR 1.95 [95% CI 1.19-3.21], P = .008), female gender (OR 1.93 [95% CI 1.12-3.32], P = .019), and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association lesion classes B2 and C (OR 2.17 [95% CI 1.10-4.27], P = .026).

CONCLUSION

Bare-metal stent deployment in STEMI patients with IRAs ≥3.5 mm was associated with low rates of TVR. Their use in this setting warrants comparison with second-generation drug-eluting stenting deployment in future randomized clinical trials.

The favorable price evolution between bare metal stents and drug eluting stents increases the cost effectiveness of drug eluting stents

AIMS

We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in diabetic and non-diabetic patients vs. bare metal stents (BMS).

METHODS

EVASTENT was a matched cohort registry of patients undergoing revascularization exclusively with SES; for each diabetic patient (db+) included, stratified according to single (SVD) or multiple (MVD) vessel disease, a non-diabetic patient (db-) was subsequently included. Efficacy, safety and cost data were obtained from the SES database, and then data from the BMS group were derived by using an original method of transition probabilities of events (Markov model and Monte Carlo simulations) if BMS had been implanted in the same patient, over a 3-year time period. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying the price difference between BMS and SES from 2008 to 2012.

RESULTS

In this study, 1731 patients were included with 97% complete follow-up at 3-years. In 2008, compared to BMS the SES was cost effective only in MVD db+ (7494€ per avoided revascularization (PAR) vs. >10,000€ in other groups). In 2012, after a reduction in the price difference between SES and BMS, SES were cost effective in MVD db+ (-891), SVD db+ (3519), MVD db- (3050), and SVD db- (6329) patients. Otherwise, the cardiovascular mortality rate was higher (p<0.0001) in MVD db+ than in SVD db+, MVD db- and SVD db-.

CONCLUSION

The SES is now cost effective in diabetic and non-diabetic patients, after a favorable price evolution between drug eluting and bare metal stents.

Changes in the safety paradigm with percutaneous coronary interventions in the modern era: Lessons learned from the ASCERT registry

In the past, comparative effectiveness trials evaluating percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), using either balloon angioplasty or bare metal stent (BMS) implantation, versus coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) found similar survival rates at long-term follow-up with both revascularization strategies. Two major meta-analyses of these trials reported 5- and 6-year comparative effectiveness between PCI and CABG: one included only four trials that compared PCI with BMS implantation versus CABG whereas the largest one also included trials using balloon angioplasty. In these studies, the authors observed no survival differences between groups although a significant survival advantage was seen in diabetics treated with CABG and this benefit was also perceived in elderly patients. In both reports, number of involved vessels, presence of left anterior descending artery stenosis or poor left ventricular ejection fraction were no predictors of poor survival with PCI. Therefore, extent of the coronary artery disease (CAD) was not associated with poor outcome after PCI in the pre-drug eluting stent (DES) era. Recently, the ASCERT (Database Collaboration on the Comparative Effectiveness of Revascularization Strategies) registry found higher mortality rate with PCI in patients ≥ 65 years old in comparison with CABG, and advantages of surgery were seen in all subgroups including those at low risk. In this registry, PCI was accomplished by implantation of the first type of DES designs in 78% of cases. The intriguing observation of high mortality rate with PCI, including for non-diabetics and patients with two-vessel CAD, meaning a lack of clinical benefit with DES implantation, had not been seen previously. The study was not randomized, although its results are largely strengthened by its sample size. In this manuscript, the authors describe other registries and randomized trials reporting similar results supporting the findings of the aforementioned study and explore the reasons for these results, while also searching for potential solutions.

Evaluating the safety of very short-term (10 days) dual antiplatelet therapy after Genous™ bio-engineered R stent™ implantation: the multicentre pilot Genous trial

AIMS

Percutaneous coronary stenting is synonymous with dual antiplatelet therapy, ranging from four weeks to lifelong. However, even short-term (four weeks) therapy with aspirin and thienopyridines is occasionally contraindicated. No study has ever appraised very short-term dual antiplatelet therapy after stenting. We thus aimed to exploit the pro-healing features of the Genous™ Bio-engineered R stent™ (Genous) (OrbusNeich Medical Technologies, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China) and evaluate the safety of a 10-day dual antiplatelet regimen after its implantation in up to 50 patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-nine consecutive patients with de novo lesions located in vessels able to receive a 2.5 mm Genous stent were included. After stenting, they received lifelong aspirin plus clopidogrel for 10 days. The primary endpoint of the study was sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction or angiographic evidence of stent thrombosis ascribable to the study stent. Almost 70% of patients effectively discontinued clopidogrel nine to 11 days after stenting. At three-month clinical follow-up, no patient had died or reached the primary endpoint (95%; confidence interval 0-7.3%). Repeat revascularisation occurred instead in three (6.1%[2.1-16.5%]), with target lesion revascularisation in two (4.1%[1.1-13.7%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Even very short-term dual antiplatelet therapy seems safe after coronary stenting with Genous in de novo coronary artery lesions located in secondary branch vessels. This preliminary exploratory study gives some support to planning a large trial to test the hypothesis of short dual antiplatelet therapy following Genous stent implantation.

Newest-generation drug-eluting and bare-metal stents combined with prasugrel-based antiplatelet therapy in large coronary arteries: the BAsel Stent Kosten Effektivitäts Trial PROspective Validation Examination part II (BASKET-PROVE II) trial design

BACKGROUND

In the BAsel Stent Kosten Effektivitäts Trial PROspective Validation Examination (BASKET-PROVE), drug-eluting stents (DESs) had similar 2-year rates of death and myocardial infarction but lower rates of target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiac events compared with bare-metal stents (BMSs). However, comparative clinical effects of newest-generation DES with biodegradable polymers vs second-generation DES or newest-generation BMS with biocompatible coatings, all combined with a prasugrel-based antiplatelet therapy, on 2-year outcomes are not known.

METHODS

In BASKET-PROVE II, 2,400 patients with de novo lesions in native vessels ≥3 mm in diameter are randomized 1:1:1 to receive a conventional DES, a DES with a biodegradable polymer, or a BMS with biocompatible coating. In addition to aspirin, stable patients with BMS will receive prasugrel for 1 month, whereas all others will receive prasugrel for 12 months. The primary end point will be combined cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization up to 2 years. Secondary end points include stent thrombosis and major bleeding. The primary aim is to test (1) the noninferiority of a biodegradable-polymer DES to a conventional DES and (2) the superiority of both DESs to BMS. A secondary aim is to compare the outcomes with those of BASKET-PROVE regarding the effects of prasugrel-based vs clopidogrel-based antiplatelet therapy.

RESULTS

By the end of 2010, 878 patients (37% of those planned) were enrolled.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will test the comparative long-term safety and efficacy of newest-generation stents on the background of contemporary antiplatelet therapy in a large all-comer population undergoing large native coronary artery stenting.

Randomized comparison of cost-saving and effectiveness of oral rapamycin plus bare-metal stents with drug-eluting stents: three-year outcome from the randomized oral rapamycin in Argentina (ORAR) III trial

OBJECTIVES

The Oral Rapamycin in ARgentina (ORAR) III trial is a randomized study comparing a strategy of oral rapamycin (OR) plus bare-metal stent (BMS) versus a strategy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with de novo coronary lesions. The purpose of this study was to assess the 3 years cost-effectiveness outcome of each strategy.

BACKGROUND

OR after BMS has been associated with reduction of target vessel revascularization (TVR) although its value in long-term efficacy in comparison with DES is unknown.

METHODS

In three hospitals in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 200 patients were randomized to OR plus BMS (n = 100) or DES (n = 100). Primary objectives were costs and effectiveness. Cost analysis included in-hospital and follow-up costs. Safety was defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. Efficacy was defined as TVR.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics between groups were similar. The 3-year follow-up rate was 99%. Cardiac mortality was 2% and 5% in OR group and DES group, respectively (P = 0.44). The composite of death, MI and stroke rate was 11% in OR group and 20% in DES group (P = 0.078). TVR rate was 14.5% in OR group and 17.6% in DES group (P = 0.50), respectively. Three year cumulative costs were significantly lower in the OR arm as compared to the DES arm (P = 0.0001) and DES strategy did not result cost-effective according to the non-inferiority test.

CONCLUSIONS

At 3 years follow-up, there were no differences in effectiveness between the two strategies, and DES strategy was not more cost-effective as compared to OR plus BMS.

Spot drug-eluting stenting for long coronary stenoses: long-term results of a randomized clinical study

BACKGROUND

Preliminary results of a randomized trial have suggested that total lesion coverage with drug-eluting stents (DES) is not necessary in the presence of diffuse disease of nonuniform severity. In the present study, we report long-term results of this trial.

METHODS

Consecutive, consenting patients with a long (>20 mm) coronary lesion of nonuniform severity and indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to full stent coverage of the atherosclerotic lesion with multiple, overlapping (full DES group, n = 90) or spot stenting of the hemodynamically significant parts of the lesion only (defined as diameter stenosis > 50%) (spot DES group, n = 89).

RESULTS

At a follow-up of 2-7 years, 30 patients with full DES (33.3%) and 12 patients (13.5%) with spot DES had a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (P = 0.015). Cox proportional hazard model showed that the risk for MACE was almost 65% lower among patients who were subjected to spot DES compared to those who underwent full DES (HR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.18-0.68, P = 0.002). This association remained significant even after controlling for age, sex, and lesion length, and the type of stent used (HR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.20-0.81, P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

In the presence of diffuse disease of nonuniform severity, selective stenting of only the significantly stenosed parts of the lesion confers better long-term results compared to total lesion coverage with DES.

Emergency management for critical left main coronary artery stenosis

BACKGROUND

Increased experience and improvements in technology seem to have encouraged the use of percutaneous interventions for left main coronary artery (LMCA) occlusions. There is no consensus, however, and the data are inadequate on whether surgery or percutaneous procedures should be the intervention of choice for critical occlusions.

METHODS

From January 2002 to December 2006, 108 patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis >80% were treated at our center. Eighty-three patients (77%) underwent bypass grafting and 20 (18%) underwent percutaneous intervention for the purpose of myocardial revascularization. We analyzed parameters demonstrated as risk factors for myocardial revascularization and their predicted effects on outcome.

RESULTS

Five patients (5%) died following emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation before any intervention was performed. The early survival rate was 84.1% in the coronary bypass group and 63% in the percutaneous intervention group. The mean (±SD) survival time was 55.7 ± 2.6 months in the bypass group and 7.6 ± 1.3 months in the percutaneous group. The late-survival rate was also significantly higher in the bypass group. The mean late-survival time was 44.5 ± 3.6 months in the bypass group and 2.3 ± 0.8 months in the percutaneous group.

CONCLUSION

Although emergency percutaneous interventions are lifesaving in some cases, these results clearly demonstrate that coronary bypass grafting should be the intervention of choice for myocardial revascularization in patients with critical LMCA occlusion.

Cost analysis of four major drug-eluting stents in diabetic populations

AIM

To use an indirect comparisons approach and conduct a cost analysis comparing four drug-eluting stents (DES) from a United States (US) payer (i.e., fixed-fee reimbursement) perspective.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Studies were chosen that randomised two or more DES in diabetic patients. A one-year target lesion revascularisation (TLR) risk for Taxus was first derived. Risk Ratios (RRs) for each DES versus Taxus were calculated through meta-analyses. The RRs were multiplied by the average TLR risk for Taxus to estimate DES TLR risks. Estimates were added to a budget-impact model, along with utilisation and reimbursement rates for diagnosis-related groups. Budgets were calculated, assuming 100% stent use and 200,000 diabetic beneficiaries. One-year TLR risks were estimated to be 3.2%, 7.1%, 6.9% and 7.9% for Cypher, Endeavor, Taxus and Xience respectively. By substituting Cypher for DES with higher TLR, results predicted annual cost-savings greater than $146 million per population ($ 733 per patient). Results were comparable when assuming no difference in TLR risk between Endeavor, Taxus and Xience.

CONCLUSIONS

When outcomes from trials of diabetic populations are analysed and used in a budget-impact model from a US payer perspective, the use of Cypher is associated with lower TLR rates, which translates into large potential cost savings.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with oral sirolimus and bare metal stents has comparable safety and efficacy to treatment with drug eluting stents, but with significant cost saving: long-term follow-up results from the randomised, controlled ORAR III (Oral Rapamycin in ARgentina) study

AIMS

Previous randomised studies have shown a significant reduction in restenosis when oral rapamycin (OR) is administered to patients undergoing bare metal stent (BMS) implantation. How this regimen compares to drug eluting stents (DES) is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two-hundred patients with de novo coronary lesions were randomised to treatment with OR plus BMS (100 pts) or with DES (100 pts). OR was given as a bolus of 10 mg per day before PCI followed by daily doses of 3 mg during following 13 days. Primary endpoints were to compare hospital, follow-up and overall cost at one, two, three and five years of follow-up. The secondary endpoints included death, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke and were analysed as major adverse cardiovascular events (MACCE). Target vessel (TVR) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) were independently analysed. Costs included procedural resources, hospitalisation, medications, repeat revascularisation procedures and professional fees. Baseline demographic, clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar. At 18.3 +/- 7 months of follow-up, the initial strategy of OR plus BMS resulted in significant cost saving when compared to DES (p=0.0001). TLR rate was 8.2% with DES and 7.0% with OR plus BMS (p=0.84), similarly no differences in TVR rate in both groups was seen (10.6% and 10.5% in OR and DES group respectively, p=0.86). Non-inferiority testing, determined that DES therapy failed to be cost saving compared to OR in all possible cost scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

A strategy of OR plus BMS is cost saving compared to DES in patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary lesions.

A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

The EQ-5D has been extensively used to assess patient utility in trials of new treatments within the cardiovascular field. The aims of this study were to review evidence of the validity and reliability of the EQ-5D, and to summarise utility scores based on the use of the EQ-5D in clinical trials and in studies of patients with cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

A structured literature search was conducted using keywords related to cardiovascular disease and EQ-5D. Original research studies of patients with cardiovascular disease that reported EQ-5D results and its measurement properties were included.

RESULTS

Of 147 identified papers, 66 met the selection criteria, with 10 studies reporting evidence on validity or reliability and 60 reporting EQ-5D responses (VAS or self-classification). Mean EQ-5D index-based scores ranged from 0.24 (SD 0.39) to 0.90 (SD 0.16), while VAS scores ranged from 37 (SD 21) to 89 (no SD reported). Stratification of EQ-5D index scores by disease severity revealed that scores decreased from a mean of 0.78 (SD 0.18) to 0.51 (SD 0.21) for mild to severe disease in heart failure patients and from 0.80 (SD 0.05) to 0.45 (SD 0.22) for mild to severe disease in angina patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The published evidence generally supports the validity and reliability of the EQ-5D as an outcome measure within the cardiovascular area. This review provides utility estimates across a range of cardiovascular subgroups and treatments that may be useful for future modelling of utilities and QALYs in economic evaluations within the cardiovascular area.

Quality-adjusted life-years and helmet use among motorcyclists sustaining head injuries

OBJECTIVES

We estimated loss of quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) among motorcyclists in Taiwan who sustained head injuries while wearing or not wearing a helmet.

METHODS

Patients with head injuries (n=3328) were grouped into categories representing good and poor outcomes (moderate disability or death) at discharge. After linkage with the National Mortality Registry, survival functions were determined and extrapolated over a 50-year period on the basis of the survival ratio between patients and age- and gender-matched reference populations, as calculated from available Taiwan vital statistics. Survival functions were then multiplied by scores from quality-of-life measures.

RESULTS

Percentages of good and poor outcomes were 87.2% and 12.8%, respectively, in the helmeted group and 66.4% and 33.6% in the nonhelmeted group. The mean QALE for helmeted motorcyclists, calculated by weighting percentages of good and poor outcomes, was 31.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with an average loss of 5.8 QALYs. For nonhelmeted motorcyclists, the mean QALE was 25.9 QALYs, with a loss of 10.7 QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

Helmet use could save approximately 5 QALYs among motorcyclists sustaining head injuries. Future cost-effectiveness analysis can calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for regulation of helmet use.

Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: the view to the HORIZONS

Drug-eluting stents (DES) offer an attractive option for the treatment of acute thrombotic lesions during acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) due to their ability to inhibit restenosis. Several randomised trials have demonstrated the efficacy of DES in reducing target vessel revascularisation (TVR) in this setting. However, several registries of real-world patients receiving DES for STEMI have raised long-term safety concerns about DES use in this patient subset. Given the inherent limitations of registry data, this issue is likely to remain unresolved until further data is made available from large-scale ongoing trials with long-term follow-up such as the HORIZONS-AMI trial.

Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting vs. bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: long-term follow-up in the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR)

AIMS

Patients with diabetes mellitus have more extensive coronary artery disease, more disease progression, and restenosis. The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in these patients is widespread, despite uncertain long-term safety and efficacy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All consecutive patients with diabetes mellitus in Sweden who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were entered into the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) during 2003-06 with complete follow-up for 1-4 years (median 2.5). Patients who received at least one DES (n = 4754) were compared with those who received only bare metal stents (BMS) (n = 4956) at the index procedure. Combined outcome of death or myocardial infarction (MI) showed no difference for DES vs. BMS, relative risk (RR), 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.77-1.06]. Myocardial infarction was significantly less common with DES in patients who received only one stent RR, 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66-0.96). The restenosis rate was 50% lower in DES-treated patients RR, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35-0.70) and was associated with a higher adjusted RR of MI, RR, 5.03 (95% CI, 4.25-5.97). DES was associated with reduced restenosis rates in all subgroups of diabetic patients with the greatest benefit in stent diameters <3 mm or stent length >20 mm. The number of lesions treated with DES to prevent one restenosis ranged from 11 to 47 in various subgroups.

CONCLUSION

This real-life registry study shows that restenosis was halved by DES in diabetic patients with stable or unstable coronary disease, with similar risk of death or MI up to 4 years compared with BMS.

Survival and outcome of neurosurgical patients requiring ventilatory support after intensive care unit stay

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical outcome of severely ill neurosurgical patients whose need for artificial life support was extended. We sought to determine whether these patients benefit from extended treatment both in life expectancy and quality of life. Furthermore, we evaluated the direct cost of the neurosurgical treatment.

METHODS

The study group comprised a consecutive series of 346 neurosurgical patients in poor condition who were discharged from the intensive care unit but still in need of artificial respiratory support. The patients had various neurosurgical diagnoses and were treated between 2000 and 2003 at the Department of Neurosurgery, Helsinki University Central Hospital. We followed the outcome of these patients by specially formatted questionnaires 6 months and 1, 2, and 5 years after treatment. Their health-related quality of life was evaluated with EuroQol EQ-5D; quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained with the treatment and the costs of a QALY were calculated.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 5 years. The mortality rate was 27% at 30 days, 45% at 1 year, and 59% at 5 years after treatment. Of the patients, 20% had a good recovery (Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS] scores 4 and 5), 18% had severe disability (GOS score 3), none was in a vegetative state (GOS score 2), 59% were dead (GOS score 1), and 3% were lost to follow-up. Of the survivors, 69% lived at home, 22% in a nursing home, 2% were in a hospital, and 7% were lost to follow-up. The median EQ-5D index value was lower than the median index value for the general population: 0.71 (25th percentile [Q1] 0.38 and 75th percentile [Q3] 0.85) versus 0.85 (Q1 0.73 and Q3 1.00). The median cost of the direct neurosurgical treatment per patient was 15,000 euros (25th percentile, 10,000 euros 75th percentile, 22,000 euros). Surviving patients gained a mean of 17 +/- 13 QALYs. The cost of 1 QALY was 2521 euros.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged intensive care unit and step-down unit treatment of critically ill neurosurgical patients seems to be clinically justified. Moreover, direct costs of neurosurgical treatment were reasonably low.