Title of article :
Cost–Effectiveness of Everolimus- Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization (from the SPIRIT-IV Trial)
Author/Authors :
Amin، نويسنده , , Amit P. and Reynolds، نويسنده , , Matthew R. and Lei، نويسنده , , Yang and Magnuson، نويسنده , , Elizabeth A. and Vilain، نويسنده , , Katherine and Durtschi، نويسنده , , Amy J. and Simonton، نويسنده , , Charles A. and Stone، نويسنده , , Gregg W. and Cohen، نويسنده , , David J.، نويسنده ,
Issue Information :
روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2012
Pages :
6
From page :
765
To page :
770
Abstract :
Although several drug-eluting stents (DESs) have been shown to be economically attractive compared to bare-metal stents in patients at moderate to high risk of restenosis, little is known about the cost–effectiveness of alternative DES designs, especially second-generation DESs. We therefore performed an economic substudy alongside the SPIRIT-IV trial, in which 3,687 patients undergoing single or multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to receive second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EESs; n = 2,458) or first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs; n = 1,229). Costs through 2 years of follow-up were assessed from the perspective of the United States health care system. The primary cost-effectiveness end point was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed as cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Over a 2-year period, use of EESs versus PESs led to a trend toward decreased overall repeat revascularization procedures (14.2 vs 16.2 per 100 subjects, p = 0.20) driven by a significant decrease in the number of target vessel revascularization procedures (8.2 vs 11.0 per 100 subjects, p = 0.02) but also a slight increase in the number of nontarget vessel revascularization procedures (6.0 vs 5.1 per 100 subjects, p = 0.37). Follow-up cardiovascular costs were decreased by $273/patient in the EES group (95% confidence interval for difference 1,048 less to 502 more, p = 0.49). Formal cost-effectiveness analysis based on these results demonstrated that the probability that EES was an economically attractive strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/quality-adjusted life year gained) was 85.7%. These findings demonstrate that in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with DESs, use of EESs is economically attractive compared to PESs with improved clinical outcomes and lower overall medical care costs at 2 years.
Journal title :
American Journal of Cardiology
Serial Year :
2012
Journal title :
American Journal of Cardiology
Record number :
1902705
Link To Document :
بازگشت