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.
SmithSCJrFeldmanTEHirshfeldJWJr. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:e1–121.
2.
BabapulleMNJosephLBelislePBrophyJMEisenbergMJ. A hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. Lancet. 2004;364:583–91.
3.
SpauldingCDaemenJBoersmaECutlipDESerruysPW. A pooled analysis of data comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:989–97.
4.
StoneGWMosesJWEllisSG. Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:998–1008.
5.
WindeckerSRemondinoAEberliFR. Sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:653–62.
6.
GargPCohenDJGazianoTMauriL. Balancing the risks of restenosis and stent thrombosis in bare-metal versus drug-eluting stents: results of a decision analytic model. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:1844–53.
7.
BodenWEO’RourkeRATeoKK. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1503–16.
8.
WeintraubWSSpertusJAKolmP. Effect of PCI on quality of life in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:677–87.
9.
GroeneveldPWSuhJJMattaMA. The costs and quality-of-life outcomes of drug-eluting coronary stents: a systematic review. J Interv Cardiol. 2007;20:1–9.
10.
RinfretSCohenDJTahami MonfaredAALelorierJMireaultJSchampaertE. Cost effectiveness of the sirolimus-eluting stent in high-risk patients in Canada: an analysis from the C-SIRIUS trial. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2006;6:159–68.
11.
ShriveFMMannsBJGalbraithPDKnudtsonMLGhaliWA. Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents. CMAJ. 2005;172:345–51.
12.
BakhaiAStoneGWMahoneyE. Cost effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization: results from the TAXUS-IV Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:253–61.
13.
Brunner-La RoccaHPKaiserCBernheimA. Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in patients at high or low risk of major cardiac events in the Basel Stent KostenEffektivitats Trial (BASKET): an 18-month analysis. Lancet. 2007;370:1552–9.
14.
CohenDJTairaDABerezinR. Cost-effectiveness of coronary stenting in acute myocardial infarction: results from the stent primary angioplasty in myocardial infarction (stent-PAMI) trial. Circulation. 2001;104:3039–45.
15.
CohenDJBakhaiAShiC. 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. Circulation. 2004;110:508–14.
16.
WeintraubWSBarnettPChenS. Economics methods in the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing percutaneous coronary Revascularization and Aggressive Guideline–driven drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial. Am Heart J. 2006;151:1180–5.
17.
WeintraubWSBodenWEZhangZ. Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention in optimally treated stable coronary patients. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008;1:12–20.
18.
ClaudeJSchindlerCKusterGM. Cost-effectiveness of invasive versus medical management of elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary artery disease: findings of the randomized trial of invasive versus medical therapy in elderly patients with chronic angina (TIME). Eur Heart J. 2004;25:2195–203.
19.
GriffinSCBarberJAMancaA. Cost effectiveness of clinically appropriate decisions on alternative treatments for angina pectoris: prospective observational study. BMJ. 2007;334:624.
20.
HlatkyMABoothroydDBMelsopKA. Economic outcomes of treatment strategies for type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes trial. Circulation. 2009;120:2550–8.
21.
WongJBSonnenbergFASalemDNPaukerSG. Myocardial revascularization for chronic stable angina: analysis of the role of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty based on data available in 1989. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:852–71.
22.
LaupacisAFeenyDDetskyASTugwellPX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ. 1992;146:473–81.
23.
Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada.3rd ed.Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.
24.
TuJVBowenJChiuM. Effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents in Ontario. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1393–402.
25.
AustinPCMamdaniMMStukelTAAndersonGMTuJV. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat Med. 2005;24:1563–78.
26.
AustinPC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28:3083–107.
27.
KinnairdTDStabileEMintzGS. Incidence, predictors, and prognostic implications of bleeding and blood transfusion following percutaneous coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol. 2003;92:930–5.
28.
SarasinFPGaspozJMBounameauxH. Cost-effectiveness of new antiplatelet regimens used as secondary prevention of stroke or transient ischemic attack. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2773–8.
29.
KingSBIIISmithSCJrHirshfeldJWJrJacobsAKMorrisonDAWilliamsDO. 2007 focused update of the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (2007 Writing Group to Review New Evidence and Update the 2005 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Circulation. 2008;117:261–95.
30.
CohenDJBreallJAHoKK. Evaluating the potential cost-effectiveness of stenting as a treatment for symptomatic single-vessel coronary disease: use of a decision-analytic model. Circulation. 1994;89:1859–74.
31.
TenenbaumAMotroMFismanEZ. Functional capacity impairment in patients with coronary artery disease: prevalence, risk factors and prognosis. Cardiology. 2003;100:207–15.
32.
StettlerCWandelSAllemannS. Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2007;370:937–48.
33.
BowenJHopkinsRHeY. Systematic Review and Cost- Effectiveness Analysis of Drug Eluting Stents Compared to Bare Metal Stents for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Ontario: Interim Report for the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: Program for Assessment of Technology in Health, McMaster University; December2005. Report No. HTA002-0512. Contract No. 06129. Available from: http://www.path-hta.ca/DESreport.pdf.
34.
MittmannNBrownASeungSJ. Economic Evaluation of Drug Eluting Stents. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; February2005. Technology Report No. 53.
35.
BrophyJEricksonL. An Economic Analysis of Drug Eluting Coronary Stents: A Quebec Perspective. Montreal, Canada: Agence d’evaluation destechnologies et des modes d’intervention en sante (AETMIS); 2004. Available at: www.aetmis.gouv.qc.ca
36.
EisenbergMJ. Drug-eluting stents: the price is not right. Circulation. 2006;114:1745–54.
37.
KongDFEisensteinELSketchMHJr. Economic impact of drug-eluting stents on hospital systems: a disease-state model. Am Heart J. 2004;147:449–56.
38.
RyanJCohenDJ. Are drug-eluting stents cost-effective? It depends on whom you ask. Circulation. 2006;114:1736–43.
39.
BucherHCHengstlerPSchindlerCGuyattGH. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical treatment for non-acute coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2000;321:73–7.
40.
KatritsisDGIoannidisJP. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus conservative therapy in nonacute coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2005;111:2906–12.
41.
SchomigAMehilliJde WahaASeyfarthMPacheJKastratiA. A meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials of a percutaneous coronary intervention-based strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:894–904.
42.
TrikalinosTAAlsheikh-AliAATatsioniANallamothuBKKentDM. Percutaneous coronary interventions for non-acute coronary artery disease: a quantitative 20-year synopsis and a network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009;373:911–8.
43.
HlatkyMABoothroydDBBravataDM. Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet. 2009;373:1190–7.
44.
NICE Process and Methods Guides: Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.
45.
PittBWatersDBrownWV. Aggressive lipid-lowering therapy compared with angioplasty in stable coronary artery disease. Atorvastatin versus Revascularization Treatment Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:70–6.
46.
SleeperLARamanathanKPicardMH. Functional status and quality of life after emergency revascularization for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:266–73.
47.
AndersonHVShawREBrindisRG. Risk-adjusted mortality analysis of percutaneous coronary interventions by American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommendations. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:189–96.
48.
EagleKAGuytonRADavidoffR. ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:e213–e310.
49.
WongSCMinutelloRHongMK. Neurological complications following percutaneous coronary interventions (a report from the 2000–2001 New York State Angioplasty Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2005;96:1248–50.
50.
Coronary angioplasty versus medical therapy for angina: the second Randomised Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA-2) trial. RITA-2 trial participants. Lancet. 1997;350:461–8.
51.
BechGJDe BruyneBPijlsNH. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation. 2001;103:2928–34.
52.
FollandEDHartiganPMParisiAF. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical therapy for stable angina pectoris: outcomes for patients with double-vessel versus single-vessel coronary artery disease in a Veterans Affairs Cooperative randomized trial. Veterans Affairs ACME Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:1505–11.
53.
HartiganPMGiacominiJCFollandEDParisiAF. Two- to three-year follow-up of patients with single-vessel coronary artery disease randomized to PTCA or medical therapy (results of a VA cooperative study). Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program ACME Investigators. Angioplasty Compared to Medicine. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82:1445–50.
54.
HendersonRAPocockSJClaytonTC. Seven-year outcome in the RITA-2 trial: coronary angioplasty versus medical therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1161–70.
55.
HuebWSoaresPRGershBJ. The Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS-II): a randomized, controlled clinical trial of three therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease: one-year results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:1743–51.
56.
HuebWABellottiGde OliveiraSA. The Medicine, Angioplasty or Surgery Study (MASS): a prospective, randomized trial of medical therapy, balloon angioplasty or bypass surgery for single proximal left anterior descending artery stenoses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:1600–5.
57.
HuebWASoaresPRAlmeidaDO. Five-year follow-op of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS): a prospective, randomized trial of medical therapy, balloon angioplasty, or bypass surgery for single proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. Circulation. 1999;100:II107–13.
58.
ZeymerUUebisRVogtA. Randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and medical therapy in stable survivors of acute myocardial infarction with single vessel disease: a study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausarzte. Circulation. 2003;108:1324–8.
59.
WijeysunderaHCNallamothuBKKrumholzHMTuJVKoDT. Meta-analysis: effects of percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy on angina relief. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:370–9.
60.
BakhaiAHillRADundarYDicksonRWalleyT. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for people with stable angina or acute coronary syndromes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(1):CD004588.
61.
DibraAKastratiAAlfonsoF. Effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in patients with bare-metal in-stent restenosis: meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:616–23.
62.
VaccaroOEberlyLENeatonJDYangLRiccardiGStamlerJ. Impact of diabetes and previous myocardial infarction on long-term survival: 25-year mortality follow-up of primary screenees of the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1438–43.
TengsTOWallaceA. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care. 2000;38:583–637.
65.
TsevatJGoldmanLLamasGA. Functional status versus utilities in survivors of myocardial infarction. Med Care. 1991;29:1153–9.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
