Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||The cost-effectiveness of guideline-driven use of drug-eluting stents: propensity-score matched analysis of a seven-year multicentre experience.|
|Authors:||Ariyaratne, Thathya V;Ademi, Zanfina;Ofori-Asenso, Richard;Huq, Molla M;Duffy, Stephen J;Yan, Bryan P;Ajani, Andrew E;Clark, David J;Billah, Baki;Brennan, Angela L;New, Gishel;Andrianopoulos, Nick;Reid, Christopher M|
|Affiliation:||Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart Centre, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia|
Deceased Author, Department of Cardiology, Box Hill Hospital, Box Hill, VIC, Australia
Department of Cardiology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, VIC, Australia
Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong..
Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia
School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
|Citation:||Current medical research and opinion 2020; 36(3): 419-426|
|Abstract:||Background: In routine clinical practice, the implantation of a drug-eluting stent (DES) versus a bare metal stent (BMS) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been guided by criteria for appropriate use. The cost-effectiveness (CE) of adopting these guidelines, however, is not clear, and was investigated from the perspective of the Australian healthcare payer. Methods and Results: Baseline and 12-month follow-up data of 12,710 PCI patients enrolled in the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registry between 2004 and 2011 were analysed. Costs inputs were derived from a clinical costing database and published sources. Propensity-score-matching was performed for DES and BMS groups within sub-groups. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated for all patients, and sub-groups of patients with '0', 1, 2, or ≥3 indications for a DES. While the incremental cost per TVR avoided for these groups were $24,683, $44,635, $33,335, and $23,788, respectively, for those with ≥3 indications, DES compared with BMS was associated with cost savings. At willingness to pay thresholds of $45,000-$75,000, probability of cost-effectiveness of DES for the overall cohort was 71-91%, '0' indications, 49-67%, 1 indication, 56-82%, 2 indications, 70-90%, and ≥3 indications, 97-99%. Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of DES compared with BMS increased with increasing risk profile of patients from those who had 1, 2, to ≥3 indications for a DES. When compared with BMS, DES was least cost effective among patients with '0' indications for a DES. Based on these results, selective use of DES implantation is supported. These findings may be useful for evidence-based clinical decision-making.|
|Appears in Collections:||Journal articles|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.