التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
The cost-effectiveness of guideline-driven use of drug-eluting stents: propensity-score matched analysis of a seven-year multicentre experience. |
| المؤلفون: |
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. |
| المصدر: |
Current Medical Research & Opinion; Mar2020, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p419-426, 8p |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
DRUG-eluting stents, COST effectiveness, PERCUTANEOUS coronary intervention, WILLINGNESS to pay, DIRECT costing, MEDICAL economics, SURGICAL stents, MEDICAL care, CARDIOVASCULAR system, TREATMENT effectiveness, PROBABILITY theory |
| مصطلحات جغرافية: |
AUSTRALIA |
| مستخلص: |
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. The incremental cost per target vessel revascularization avoided for the overall population was $24,683, and for patients with 0, 1, and 2 indications for a DES was $44,635, $33,335, and $23,788, respectively. However, for those with >3 indications, DES compared with BMS was associated with cost savings. At willingness to pay thresholds of $45,000-$75,000, the 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Current Medical Research & Opinion is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
