Cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary interventions in Brazil.

OBJECTIVES To compare the cost-effectiveness ratios of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) under two perspectives: the "supplementary medical system" (health plans and private patients) and the public health (SUS) system. METHODS A decision-analytic model using three different therapeutic strategies for coronary lesions: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BMS; with SES; or with BMS followed by SES to treat symptomatic restenosis. Study endpoints were one-year event-free survival and life expectancy. Decision trees were constructed using the results of published registries and clinical trials. RESULTS One-year restenosis-free survival was 92.7% with SES and 78.8% with BMS. Estimated life expectancy was very similar for all the strategies, ranging from 18.5 to 19 years. Under a nonpublic perspective, the cost difference in the first year between BMS and SES was R$3,816, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$27,403 per event avoided in one year. Under the SUS perspective, the cost per event avoided in one year was R$47,529. In the sensitivity analysis, probability of restenosis, risk reduction expected with SES, the price of the stent and cost of treating restenosis were all important predictors. In the Monte Carlo simulation, data per years of life saved showed very high cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSION In the Brazilian model, the cost-effectiveness ratios for SES were elevated. The use of SES was more favorable for patients with high risk of restenosis, as it is associated with elevated costs in restenosis management of and under a nonpublic perspective.

[1]  M. Briel,et al.  Mortality in randomized controlled trials comparing drug-eluting vs. bare metal stents in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. , 2006, European heart journal.

[2]  David O. Williams,et al.  Outcomes of 6906 Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents: Report of the DEScover Registry , 2006, Circulation.

[3]  Mark J. Eisenberg,et al.  Drug-Eluting Stents: The Price Is Not Right , 2006, Circulation.

[4]  David J Cohen,et al.  Are drug-eluting stents cost-effective? It depends on whom you ask. , 2006, Circulation.

[5]  G. Stone,et al.  Cost effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization: results from the TAXUS-IV Trial. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  Michael Joner,et al.  Pathology of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[7]  A. Colombo,et al.  Drug-eluting stent thrombosis: increasingly recognized but too frequently overemphasized. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  P. Buser,et al.  Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents Compared With a Third-Generation Bare-Metal Stent in a Real-World Setting: Randomised Basel Stent Kosten Effektivitats Trial (BASKET) , 2005 .

[9]  J. Brophy.  The dollars and sense of drug-eluting stents , 2005, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[10]  B. Manns,et al.  Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents , 2005, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[11]  Lawrence Joseph,et al.  A hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials of drug-eluting stents , 2004, The Lancet.

[12]  Ameet Bakhai,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents for Treatment of Complex Coronary Stenoses: Results From the Sirolimus-Eluting Balloon Expandable Stent in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SIRIUS) Trial , 2004, Circulation.

[13]  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.

[14]  P. Serruys,et al.  Effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for recurrent in-stent restenosis after brachytherapy. , 2003, The American journal of cardiology.

[15]  N. Weissman,et al.  Predictors of Subacute Stent Thrombosis: Results of a Systematic Intravascular Ultrasound Study , 2003, Circulation.

[16]  J. Brophy,et al.  Evidence for Use of Coronary Stents: A Hierarchical Bayesian Meta-Analysis , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  K. Kent,et al.  The outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with in-stent restenosis who failed intracoronary radiation therapy. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[18]  Ameet Bakhai,et al.  Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (the Stent or Surgery trial): a randomised controlled trial , 2002, The Lancet.

[19]  I. Penn,et al.  Bypass Surgery Versus Stenting for the Treatment of Multivessel Disease in Patients With Unstable Angina Compared With Stable Angina , 2002, Circulation.

[20]  William S Weintraub,et al.  A contemporary overview of percutaneous coronary interventions. The American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR). , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[21]  Benno J. Rensing,et al.  Sustained Suppression of Neointimal Proliferation by Sirolimus-Eluting Stents: One-Year Angiographic and Intravascular Ultrasound Follow-Up , 2001, Circulation.

[22]  S. Goldberg,et al.  Predictors of diffuse and aggressive intra-stent restenosis. , 2001, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  D. Owens,et al.  Projected long-term costs of coronary stenting in multivessel coronary disease based on the experience of the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI). , 2000, American heart journal.

[24]  R. Choussat,et al.  In-stent restenosis: long-term outcome and predictors of subsequent target lesion revascularization after repeat balloon angioplasty. , 2000, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[25]  A. Sousa,et al.  Intervenções percutâneas para revascularização do miocárdio no Brasil em 1996 e 1997 comparadas às do biênio 1992 e 1993. Relatório do registro CENIC (Central Nacional de Intervenções Cardiovasculares) , 1998 .

[26]  P. Teirstein,et al.  A Randomized Comparison of Coronary-Stent Placement and Balloon Angioplasty in the Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease , 1994 .

[27]  W Rutsch,et al.  A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  L. Goldman,et al.  Evaluating the potential cost-effectiveness of stenting as a treatment for symptomatic single-vessel coronary disease. Use of a decision-analytic model. , 1994, Circulation.

[29]  Rogério Sarmento-Leite,et al.  Custo-Efetividade dos Stents Revestidos com Drogas em Vasos de Grande Calibre , 2006 .

[30]  T. Wisløff,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents , 2006 .

[31]  J. A. Mangione.  Intervenção Coronária Percutânea no Brasil. Quais são os Nossos Números , 2006 .

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

[33]  A. Kastrati,et al.  Comparative analysis of stent placement versus balloon angioplasty in small coronary arteries with long narrowings (the Intracoronary Stenting or Angioplasty for Restenosis Reduction in Small Arteries [ISAR-SMART] Trial). , 2002, The American journal of cardiology.

[34]  I. Palacios,et al.  Argentine Randomized Study: Coronary Angioplasty with Stenting versus Coronary Bypass Surgery in patients with Multiple-Vessel Disease (ERACI II): 30-day and one-year follow-up results. ERACI II Investigators. , 2001, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[35]  A. G. Adelman.  A comparison of coronary-artery stenting with angioplasty. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.