Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents

Background: Sirolimus-eluting stents have recently been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis among patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Given that sirolimus-eluting stents cost about 4 times as much as conventional stents, and considering the volume of PCI procedures, the decision to use sirolimus-eluting stents has large economic implications. Methods: We performed an economic evaluation comparing treatment with sirolimus-eluting and conventional stents in patients undergoing PCI and in subgroups based on age and diabetes mellitus status. The probabilities of transition between clinical states and estimates of resource use and health-related quality of life were derived from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) database. Information on effectiveness was based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing sirolimus-eluting and conventional stents. Results: Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in the baseline analysis was Can$58 721. Sirolimus-eluting stents were more cost-effective in patients with diabetes and in those over 75 years of age, the costs per QALY gained being $44 135 and $40 129, respectively. The results were sensitive to plausible variations in the cost of stents, the estimate of the effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents and the assumption that sirolimus-eluting stents would prevent the need for cardiac catheterizations in the subsequent year when no revascularization procedure was performed to treat restenosis. Interpretation: The use of sirolimus-eluting stents is associated with a cost per QALY that is similar to or higher than that of other accepted medical forms of therapy and is associated with a significant incremental cost. Sirolimus-eluting stents are more economically attractive for patients who are at higher risk of restenosis or at a high risk of death if a second revascularization procedure were to be required.

[1]  鈴木 秀俊,et al.  Sirolimus-eluting Stents 再狭窄の検討 , 2007 .

[2]  L. Hirsch Competing interests: none declared. , 2006 .

[3]  J. Popma,et al.  The Canadian study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with long de novo lesions in small native coronary arteries (C-SIRIUS). , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  D. Cohen,et al.  Can we afford to eliminate restenosis? Can we afford not to? , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[5]  S. Bergmann,et al.  Myocardial perfusion imaging following percutaneous coronary intervention: the importance of restenosis, disease progression, and directed reintervention. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  William Wijns,et al.  Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with long atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries: double-blind, randomised controlled trial (E-SIRIUS) , 2003, The Lancet.

[7]  Jeffrey W Moses,et al.  Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Do hospitals with low mortality rates in coronary artery bypass also perform well in valve replacement? , 2003, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[9]  W. Ghali,et al.  In-hospital outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in Canada: 1992/93 to 2000/01. , 2003, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[10]  D. Baim,et al.  Clinical restenosis after coronary stenting: perspectives from multicenter clinical trials. , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  T. Ryan,et al.  Gender-related changes in the practice and outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions in Northern New England from 1994 to 1999. , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  Anke Richter,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of intensive glycemic control, intensified hypertension control, and serum cholesterol level reduction for type 2 diabetes. , 2002, JAMA.

[13]  Ousa,et al.  A RANDOMIZED COMPARISON OF A SIROLIMUS-ELUTING STENT WITH A STANDARD STENT FOR CORONARY REVASCULARIZATION , 2002 .

[14]  W. Ghali,et al.  Overview of the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease. On behalf of the APPROACH investigators. , 2000, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[15]  J. J. Griffin,et al.  Optimum percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty compared with routine stent strategy trial (OPUS-1): a randomised trial , 2000, The Lancet.

[16]  C D Naylor,et al.  Dealing with missing data in observational health care outcome analyses. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  S. Perry Reports from the Canadian coordinating office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). , 1994, International journal of technology assessment in health care.

[18]  G. Sanders,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Relative to Amiodarone for Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  M. Weinstein,et al.  Cost–effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery , 1982, Circulation.

[20]  G. H. Moore,et al.  Consumer Price Index , 1993 .