To evaluate current treatment patterns for coronary artery revascularization in Canada and explore the potential impact of drug eluting stents (DES) on these treatment patterns.
Eleven cardiologists at multiple Canadian academic centers completed a questionnaire on coronary artery revascularization rates and treatment patterns.
Participating physicians indicated slightly higher rates of PTCA, CABG, and stent implantation than reported in CCN publications. Participants estimated that 24% of all patients currently receiving bare metal stents (BMS) would receive DES in the first year following DES approval in Canada, although there was a large range of estimates around this value (5% to 65%). By the fifth year following DES approval, it was estimated that 85% of BMS patients would instead receive DES. Among diabetic patients, estimates ranged from 43% in the first year following approval to 91% in the fifth year. For all patients currently receiving CABG, mean use of DES instead was estimated at 12% in the first year to 42% at five years; rates among diabetic patients currently undergoing CABG were 17% in the first year to 49% in the fifth year.
These results suggest a continued increase in revascularization procedures in Canada. Based on the panel's responses, it is likely that a trend away from CABG towards PTCA will continue in Canada, and will be augmented by the availability of DES as a treatment option. The availability of DES as a treatment option in Canada may change the threshold at which revascularization procedures are considered.
Cites: Am J Cardiol. 2000 Mar 1;85(5):548-5311078265
Cites: Eur Heart J. 1998 Nov;19(11):1696-7039857923
The aim of this study was to systematically review economic analyses comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) to bare metal stents (BMS) in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention to form an overall view about cost-effectiveness of DES and to construct a simple decision analysis model to evaluate the cost-utility of DES.
Electronic databases searched from January 2004 to January 2006 were Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; DARE, HTA, EED (NHS CRD); MEDLINE(R) In-Process, Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE(R). References of the papers identified were checked. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) or model-based cost-effectiveness analyses comparing DES to BMS in patients with coronary artery disease. The methodological quality of the papers was assessed by Drummond's criteria. Baseline characteristics and results of the studies were extracted and data synthesized descriptively. A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost-utility of DES in comparison to BMS, where health-related quality of life was measured by the 15D.
We identified thirteen good-quality economic evaluations. In two of these based on RCTs, DES was found cost-effective. In six studies, it was concluded that DES might probably be a cost-effective strategy in some circumstances, but not as a single strategy, and four studies concluded that DES is not cost-effective. One study did not draw a clear conclusion. In our analysis, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was Euros 98,827 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Avoiding one revascularization with DES would cost Euros 4,794, when revascularization with BMS costs Euros 3,260.
The evidence is inconsistent of whether DES would be a cost-effective treatment compared with BMS in any healthcare system where evaluated. A marked restenosis risk reduction should be achieved before use of DES is justifiable at present prices. When considering adoption of a new health technology with a high incremental cost within a fixed budget, opportunity cost in terms of untreated patients should be seriously considered as a question of collective ethics.
To determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) and cost-utility (CU) of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in Ontario using a large prospective "real-world" cohort study and determine the extent to which results vary by patient risk subgroups.
A field evaluation was conducted based on all stent procedures in the province of Ontario between December 1, 2003, and March 31, 2005, with a minimum subject follow-up of 1 year. Effectiveness data from the study using a propensity-score matched cohort were combined with resource utilization and cost data and quality of life (QOL) data from the published literature in a decision analytic modeling framework to determine 2-year cost-effectiveness (cost per revascularization avoided) and cost-utility (cost per quality-adjusted life-year ([QALY] gained). Stochastic model parameter uncertainty was expressed using probability distributions and analyzed using a probabilistic model. Modeling assumptions were assessed using traditional deterministic sensitivity analysis.
Significant differences in revascularization rates were found for patients with two or more high risk factors. Despite these differences, the CE and CU of DES remained high (e.g., $419,000 per QALY gained in the most favorable patient risk subgroup). In sensitivity analysis, the difference in cost between DES and BMS had an impact on the CE and CU results. For example, at a price differential of $500, the CU of DES was $20,000/QALY for one patient subgroup and DES was dominant (i.e., less costly and more effective) in another.
At current prices, the CE/CU of DES compared with BMS is high even in patient high risk subgroups. As the relative price of DES decrease, the value for money attractiveness of DES increases, especially for selected high risk patients.
Health economic evaluation of stent or endoluminal brachytherapy as a palliative strategy in patients with incurable cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction: results of a randomized clinical trial.
OBJECTIVE: To relieve dysphagia is the main goal in palliative treatment of patients with incurable cancer of the oesophagus or the gastro-oesophageal junction. The aim of this prospective, randomized multicentre study was to compare stent placement and brachytherapy regarding health economy and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Patients with incurable cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction were randomized to receive a self-expandable metallic stent or 3 x 7 Gy brachytherapy. At clinical follow-up visits, dysphagia was scored and health care consumptions were recorded. Costs were based on hospital debits. Total lifetime healthcare consumption costs and costs for the initial treatments were calculated and a sensitivity analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Thirty patients were randomized to each treatment group. There was no difference in survival or complication rates between the two treatment strategies. There was a significant difference in the change of dysphagia scores between the time of inclusion and the 1-month follow-up visit, in favour of the stented group (P = 0.03). This difference had disappeared at 3 months. Median total lifetime costs were 17,690 for the stented group compared with 33 171 for the brachytherapy group (P = 0.005). This difference was due to higher costs for the initial treatment (4615 versus 23 857, P
We previously showed that primary stenting was more effective than accelerated tPA in reducing the 6-month composite of death, reinfarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization for ischemia. This study looks at the hospitalization costs of primary stenting compared with accelerated tPA.
Initial and 6-month hospitalization costs were computed for all patients randomly assigned to primary stenting (n=62) or accelerated tPA (n=61) in the Stenting versus Thrombolysis in Acute myocardial infarction Trial (STAT). Costs and resource usage were collected in detail for each patient. Physician fees were obtained directly from billings to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. The length of initial hospitalization was 6.7+/-11.3 days in the stent group and 8.7+/-6.7 days in the tPA group (P
Despite the widespread use of ureteral stents for pyeloplasty by pediatric urologists there is ongoing controversy regarding the most advantageous type of transanastomotic drainage. We compared patients who underwent placement of an externalized pyeloureteral Salle intraoperative pyeloplasty stent (Cook Urological, Spencer, Indiana) to those who had a standard Double-J ureteral stent placed to assess the benefits, drawbacks and costs of each modality during open pyeloplasty.
Our study sample comprised 470 age matched children who underwent primary open pyeloplasty in an 11-year period. A total of 242 patients (51.5%) underwent Double-J ureteral stent insertion and 228 (48.5%) underwent placement of a Salle intraoperative pyeloplasty stent at surgery. Operative time, hospital stay, overall complication and success rates, type of complications and hospital costs were compared between the 2 groups.
Median age was 18 months and median followup was 39 months. Mean hospital stay was 3.0 and 3.1 days in children with a Double-J ureteral and a Salle intraoperative pyeloplasty stent, respectively (p = 0.7). The overall complication rate was 9.9% (24 of 242 patients) for the Double-J ureteral stent vs 8.3% (19 of 228) for the Salle intraoperative pyeloplasty stent (p = 0.6). Complications in patients with a Double-J ureteral stent consisted of urinoma in 3, return visits due to bladder spasms in 7 or catheter obstruction in 6 and readmission due to pyelonephritis in 5. Complications in children with a Salle intraoperative pyeloplasty stent involved urinoma in 1, prolonged drainage through the Penrose drain in 5 and readmission due to pyelonephritis in 1. Recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction developed in 12 cases per group. The success rate was 95.0% (230 of 242 cases) and 94.7% (216 of 228) for the Double-J ureteral and the Salle intraoperative pyeloplasty stent, respectively (p = 0.2). Hospital charges, including the surgical procedure, postoperative hospitalization and cystoscopy or a clinical visit for catheter removal, in patients with a Double-J ureteral and a Salle intraoperative pyeloplasty stent were $9,825 and $9,260, respectively.
The 2 ureteral stents are equivalent in regard to overall complication and success rates after pyeloplasty. However, Salle intraoperative pyeloplasty stent insertion was associated with a Canadian $565 cost decrease per patient and most importantly the preclusion of a second general anesthesia for catheter removal.
Gastroduodenal outlet obstruction is a complication of advanced gastrointestinal malignant disease. In the past it was usually treated by an open surgical bypass procedure. During the last decade, endoscopic self-expandable stents (SEMS) have been used. The aim of this study was to compare these two palliative strategies concerning clinical outcome and health economy. A series of 36 patients with incurable malignant disease and gastroduodenal outlet obstruction syndrome were treated in a prospective study. According to the attending hospital and endoscopist on duty, 21 of the 36 patients were endoscopically treated with SEMS and 15 underwent an open surgical gastroenteroanastomosis. Health economic evaluation was based on the monetary charges for each patient associated with the procedure, postoperative care, and hospital stay. The hospital stay was 7.3 days for the stented group compared with 14.7 days for the open surgery group ( p > 0.05). The survivals were 76 and 99 days, respectively (NS). In the stented group all 15 patients (100%) alive after 1 month were able to eat or drink, and 11 (73%) of them tolerated solid food. In the surgical bypass group,9 out of 11 (81%) patients alive after 1 month could eat or drink, and 5 of them (45%) could eat solid food. The mean charges (U.S. dollars) during the hospital stay were $7215 for the stented group and $10,190 for the open surgery group ( p
Drug-eluting stents (DES) may promote percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in patients traditionally referred for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and may save money.
The purpose of the present study was to quantify the potential shift from CABG surgery to multivessel PCI in the DES era and to model the economic consequences.
Based on predefined criteria, the feasibility of PCI was evaluated in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who underwent CABG surgery before the availability of DES at the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal's Notre-Dame Hospital (Montreal, Quebec). Modelling was used to evaluate the potential cost savings using multivessel PCI instead of CABG surgery. Equal one-year outcomes in both groups were assumed, with the exception of a 10% repeat revascularization (RR) rate in the DES group and a 4% RR rate in the CABG group. The impact of those assumptions was evaluated using 1000 Monte Carlo simulations.
The authors retrospectively evaluated that, of 289 patients who underwent CABG without concomitant valve surgery between January and December 2003, only 22 patients (8%) were good candidates for multivessel DES implantation. The procedures would have involved an average of 3.6 DES per patient. The average cost per revascularization procedure was $14,402 with surgery and $11,220 for multivessel DES implantation (using $2,200 DES), leading to a savings of $3,182 per patient. However, after including RR procedures, PCI would only have been associated with savings of $812 per surgery avoided. Monte Carlo analysis revealed that surgery may be less expensive than PCI in 36% of patients.
Most patients who underwent CABG surgery in 2003 were retrospectively judged to be ineligible for multivessel PCI with DES. In the rare eligible patient, multivessel PCI with DES is not expected to produce savings to health care costs in Canada unless the DES purchase cost continues to decrease.
Cites: Circulation. 2001 Jun 19;103(24):3019-4111413094
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 8;356(10):998-100817296824
To assess the relative importance that cardiovascular specialists assign to new technologies.
A pilot survey of practising cardiologists in one tertiary hospital and cardiology trainees from two university programs. Respondents were asked to distribute a hypothetical budget among several new technologies.
A total of 28 responses (response rate of 62%) were analyzed. In the hypothetical situation described, doctors appeared willing to spend approximately equal amounts on implantable cardiac defibrillators (median 25%, interquartile range 5% to 30%) and bare metal coronary stents (median 28%, interquartile range 20% to 40%). Physicians were more restrained in their allocation for refinements of these two technologies, including drug-eluting stents and biventricular pacing. Wide individual variations in technology use were noted.
There is considerable uncertainty among cardiovascular specialists regarding the relative value of new technologies. Further work is required to better quantify this uncertainty and its determinants.
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2003 May 20;138(10):777-8612755549
Cites: Lancet. 2004 Aug 14-20;364(9434):583-9115313358
Cites: CMAJ. 2005 Feb 1;172(3):345-5115684117
Cites: CMAJ. 2007 Jan 16;176(2):199-20517179219
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jun 21;142(12 Pt 1):996-100215968014
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jun 21;142(12 Pt 2):1073-915968032
Cites: Am Heart J. 2005 Jun;149(6):1020-3415976783
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jun 7;142(11):932-715941701