Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:01:14.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CORONARY BYPASS SURGERY VERSUS PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION: COST-EFFECTIVENESS IN IRAN: A STUDY IN PATIENTS WITH MULTIVESSEL CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2014

Mehdi Javanbakht ,
Razieh Yazdani Bakhsh ,
Atefeh Mashayekhi ,
Hossein Ghaderi  and
Masoumeh Sadeghi
Mehdi Javanbakht
Affiliation:
Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen; Health Management and Economics Research Center, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical [email protected]
Razieh Yazdani Bakhsh
Affiliation:
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
Atefeh Mashayekhi
Affiliation:
Tehran University of Medical Sciences
Hossein Ghaderi
Affiliation:
Health Economics Department, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences
Masoumeh Sadeghi
Affiliation:
Cardiac Rehabilitation Research Center, Isfahan Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate cost effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting from Iran society perspective.

Methods: A retrospective study was carried out to estimate the annual cost and health related quality of life (HRQoL) of 109 patients who underwent coronary revascularization (PCI [n = 75] and CABG [n = 34]). A Markov model has been developed to determine the cost effectiveness of CABG compared with PCI. We used the model to calculate lifetime costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of each strategy. We also used probabilistic sensitivity analysis to test model robustness.

Results: We found that discounted QALY lived per person in CABG versus PCI group in 5 years, 10 years, and lifetime time horizon were (3.8 ± 0.13 versus 3.88 ± 0.14), (6.4 ± 0.23 versus 6.33 ± 0.22), and (8.74 ± 0.29 versus 8.33 ± 0.27), respectively. The estimated medical cost of CABG and PCI per patient in 5 years, 10 years, and lifetime time horizon were (USD 6,819 ± 765 versus 9,011 ± 1,816), (USD 8,852 ± 1,348 versus 12,034 ± 2,375), and (USD 14,037± 4,201 versus 18,798 ± 5,821), respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results showed CABG is a dominate alternative in 10 years and lifetime time horizon.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that despite higher initial cost and lower HRQoL, CABG is a cost-effective revascularization strategy compared with PCI for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in long-term.

Keywords

Cost effectiveness analysisPercutaneous coronary interventionCoronary artery bypass graftIranQuality adjusted life years
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 366 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Deaton, C, Froelicher, ES, Wu, LH, Ho, C, Shishani, K, Jaarsma, T. The global burden of cardiovascular disease. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011;26:S5–S14.Google Scholar
2. Trogdon, JG, Finkelstein, EA, Nwaise, IA, Tangka, FK, Orenstein, D. The economic burden of chronic cardiovascular disease for major insurers. Health Promot Pract. 2007;8:234–242.Google Scholar
3. Naik, H, White, AJ, Chakravarty, T, et al. A meta-analysis of 3,773 patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention or surgery for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:739–747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Hlatky, MA, Boothroyd, DB, Bravata, DM, et al. 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;373:1190–1197.Google Scholar
5. Takagi, H, Kawai, N, Umemoto, T. Meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials on long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for multivessel coronary artery disease. The Am J Cardiol. 2008;101:1259–1262.Google Scholar
6. Vieira, RD, Hueb, W, Hlatky, M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis for surgical, angioplasty, or medical therapeutics for coronary artery disease: 5-year follow-up of medicine, angioplasty, or surgery study (MASS) II trial. Circulation. 2012;126 (Suppl 1):S145–S150.Google Scholar
7. Cohen, DJ, Lavelle, TA, Van Hout, B, et al. Economic outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus bypass surgery for patients with left main or three-vessel coronary artery disease: One-year results from the SYNTAX trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;79:198–209.Google Scholar
8. Stroupe, KT, Morrison, DA, Hlatky, MA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafts versus percutaneous coronary intervention for revascularization of high-risk patients. Circulation. 2006;114:1251–1257.Google Scholar
9. Morabia, A, Abel, T. The WHO report “Preventing chronic diseases: A vital investment” and us. Soz Praventivmed. 2006;51:74.Google Scholar
10. Tessa, T-TE, Baltussen, R, Adam, T, et al. Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003.Google Scholar
11. Daemen, J, Boersma, E, Flather, M, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting and coronary artery bypass surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis with 5-year patient-level data from the ARTS, ERACI-II, MASS-II, and SoS trials. Circulation. 2008;118:1146–1154.Google Scholar
12. Gray, AM, Clarke, PM, Wolstenholme, JL, Wordsworth, S. Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
13. Investigators, B. The final 10-year follow-up results from the BARI randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1600.Google Scholar
14. Henderson, RA, Pocock, SJ, Sharp, SJ, et al. Long-term results of RITA-1 trial: Clinical and cost comparisons of coronary angioplasty and coronary-artery bypass grafting. Randomised intervention treatment of angina. Lancet. 1998;352:1419–1425.Google Scholar
15. Tofighi, S, Ahmad Kiadaliri, A, Sadeghifar, J, Raadabadi, M, Mamikhani, J. Health-related quality of life among patients with coronary artery disease: A post-treatment follow-up study in Iran. Cardiol Res Pract. 2012;2012:973974.Google Scholar
16. Ara, R, Brazier, J. Predicting the short form-6D preference-based index using the eight mean short form-36 health dimension scores: Estimating preference-based health-related utilities when patient level data are not available. Value Health. 2009;12:346–53.Google Scholar
17. Central Bank of Iran. Exchange rates,www.cbi.ir/ExRates/rates_en.aspx Iran [cited 2012 June]; www.cbi.ir/ExRates/rates_en.aspx (accessed October 20, 2012).Google Scholar
18. Fenwick, E, Byford, S. A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;187:106–108.Google Scholar
19. Habib, SH, Saha, S. Burden of non-communicable disease: Global overview. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2010;4:41–47.Google Scholar
20. Bravata, DM, McDonald, K, Gienger, A, et al. Comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass grafting for coronary artery disease. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:47.Google Scholar
21. Hlatky, MA, Rogers, WJ, Johnstone, I, et al. Medical care costs and quality of life after randomization to coronary angioplasty or coronary bypass surgery. Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:92–99.Google Scholar
22. Ayanian, JZ. Diversity in cardiovascular outcomes among Chinese and South Asian patients. Circulation. 2010;122:1550–1552.Google Scholar
23. Serruys, PW, Ong, ATL, van Herwerden, LA, et al. Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: The final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) Randomized Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:575–581.Google Scholar
24. Muntwyler, J, Abetel, G, Gruner, C, Follath, F. One-year mortality among unselected outpatients with heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2002;23:1861–1866.Google Scholar
25. Lampe, F, Whincup, P, Wannamethee, S, et al. The natural history of prevalent ischaemic heart disease in middle-aged men. Eur Heart J. 2000;21:1052–1062.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Javanbakht Supplementary Material

Figure 1

Download Javanbakht Supplementary Material(File)
File 847.4 KB