Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T01:57:29.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting coronary stents in Quebec, Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2005

James M. Brophy  and
Lonny J. Erickson
James M. Brophy
Affiliation:
McGill University
Lonny J. Erickson
Affiliation:
McGill University AETMIS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this investigation was to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of replacing bare metal coronary stents (BMS) with drug-eluting stents (DES) in the Province of Quebec, Canada.

Methods: The strategy used was a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the health-care provider, in the province of Quebec, Canada (population 7.5 million). The main outcome measure was the cost per avoided revascularization intervention.

Results: Based on the annual Quebec rate of 14,000 angioplasties with an average of 1.7 stents per procedure and a purchase cost of $2,600 Canadian dollar (CDN) for DES, 100 percent substitution of BMS with DES would require an additional $45.1 million CDN of funding. After the benefits of reduced repeat revascularization interventions are included, the incremental cost would be $35.2 million CDN. The cost per avoided revascularization intervention (18 percent coronary artery bypass graft, 82 percent percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) would be $23,067 CDN. If DES were offered selectively to higher risk populations, for example, a 20 percent subgroup with a relative restenosis risk of 2.5 times the current bare metal rate, the incremental cost of the program would be $4.9 million CDN at a cost of $7,800 per avoided revascularization procedure. Break-even costs for the program would occur at DES purchase cost of $1,161 for 100 percent DES use and $1,627 for selective 20 percent DES use for high-risk patients for restenosis (RR = 2.5). Univariate and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses indicate that the parameters most affecting the analysis are the capacity to select patients at high risk of restenosis, the average number of stents used per PCI, baseline restenosis rates for BMS, the effectiveness ratio of restenosis prevention for DES versus BMS, the cost of DES, and the revascularization rate after initial PCI. Sensitivity analyses suggest little additional health benefits but escalating cost-effectiveness ratios once a DES penetration of 40 percent has been attained.

Conclusions: Under current conditions in Quebec, Canada, selective use of DES in high-risk patients is the most acceptable strategy in terms of cost-effectiveness. Results of such an analysis would be expected to be similar in other countries with key model parameters similar to those used in this model. This model provides an example of how to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of selective use of a new technology in high-risk patients.

Keywords

Cost-effectivenessCardiologyCoronary stents
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 326 - 333
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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

Babapulle MN, Joseph L, Bélisle P, Brophy JM, Eisenberg MJ. 2004 A hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of drug-related stents. Lancet. 364: 583– 591.Google Scholar
Bolognese L. 2004. Le indicazioni all'uso degli stent a rilascio di farmaco. U.O. Malattie Cardiovascolari Osp. S. Donato Arezzo. Available at: http://www.regione.emilia-romagna.it/agenziasan/convegni/2004/2004_04_30_stent/pomeriggio/Bolognese.pdf. Accessed October 7
Brophy JM, Belisle P, Joseph L. 2003 Evidence for use of coronary stents. A hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 138: 777– 786.Google Scholar
Bucher HC, Hengstler P, Schindler C, Guyatt GH. 2000 Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical treatment for nonacute coronary heart disease: Meta analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 321: 73– 77.Google Scholar
Cohen DJ, Bakhai A, Shi C, et al; on behalf of the SIRIUS Investigators. 2004 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. 110: 508– 514.Google Scholar
Cohen EA, Young W, Slaughter PM, Oh P, Naylor CD. 1999 Trends in clinical and economic outcomes of coronary angioplasty from 1992 to 1995: A population-based analysis. Am Heart J. 137: 1012– 1018.Google Scholar
Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de lasanté. 1996. Revascularization techniques used in the treatment of stable angina pectoris. Quebec: Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé;
Cutlip DE, Chhabra AG, Baim DS, et al. 2004 Beyond restenosis: Five-year clinical outcomes from second-generation coronary stent trials. Circulation. 110: 1226– 1230.Google Scholar
Farb A, Sangiorgi G, Carter AJ, et al. 1999 Pathology of acute and chronic coronary stenting in humans. Circulation. 99: 44– 52.Google Scholar
Greenberg D, Bakhai A, Cohen DJ. 2003 Do benefits of drug-eluting stents outweigh the costs? Am J Drug Delivery. 1: 255– 266.Google Scholar
Hill R, Bagust A, Bakhai A, et al. Coronary artery stents: A rapid systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/Stents_Assessment_report.pdf. Accessed June 14 2004.
Hoffmann R, Mintz GS, Dussaillant GR, et al. 1996 Patterns and mechanisms of in-stent restenosis. A serial intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation. 94: 1247– 1254.Google Scholar
Kaptchuk TJ. 2003 Effect of interpretive bias on research evidence. BMJ. 326: 1453– 1455.Google Scholar
King SB. 2003 III. Restenosis: The mouse that roared. Circulation. 108: 248– 249.Google Scholar
Komatsu R, Ueda M, Naruko T, Kojima A, Becker AE. 1998 Neointimal tissue response at sites of coronary stenting in humans: Macroscopic, histological, and immunohistochemical analyses. Circulation. 98: 224– 233.Google Scholar
Lemos PA, Serruys PW, van Domburg RT, et al. 2003 Unrestricted utilization of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with conventional bare stent implantation in the “real world.” The rapamycin-eluting stent evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry. Circulation. 109: 190– 195.Google Scholar
Magaz S, Badia X, Annemans L, Lamotte M. 2003 Cost-effectiveness analysis of coronary revascularization techniques available for the treatment of ischemic heart disease. Value Health. 6: 668.Google Scholar
Mittmann N, Seung SJ, Brown A, Coyle D, Brophy JM, Cohen E. Economic evaluation of drug eluting stents. Canadian Cardiology Conference, Calgary Alberta, October 2004 (Abstract). Available at: http://www.pulsus.com/ccc2004/abs/a332.htm. Accessed 22 November 2004.
O'Brien BJ, Willan A, Blackhouse G, Goeree R, Cohen M, Goodman S. 2000 Will the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) in patients with acute coronary syndrome save costs in Canada? Am Heart J. 139: 423– 429.Google Scholar
Rinfret S, Grines CL, Cosgrove RS, et al. 2001 Quality of life after balloon angioplasty or stenting for acute myocardial infarction. One-year results from the stent-PAMI trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 38: 1614– 1621.Google Scholar
Ruygrok PN, Melkert R, Morel MA, et al. 1999 Does angiography six months after coronary intervention influence management and outcome? Benestent II Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 34: 1507– 1511.Google Scholar
Wenk Lang A, Knight C. 2003 A cost-effectiveness analysis of TAXUS drug eluting stent in the UK. Value in Health. 6: 661.Google Scholar