The cost-effectiveness of guideline-driven use of drug-eluting stents: propensity-score matched analysis of a seven-year multicentre experience

Thathya V. Ariyaratne, Zanfina Ademi, Richard Ofori-Asenso, Molla M. Huq, Stephen J. Duffy, Bryan P. Yan, Andrew E. Ajani, David J. Clark, Baki Billah, Angela L. Brennan, Gishel New, Nick Andrianopoulos, Christopher M. Reid

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)419-426
Number of pages8
JournalCurrent Medical Research and Opinion
Volume36
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Mar 2020

Keywords

  • bare-metal stents
  • cost-effectiveness
  • Drug-eluting stents
  • guidelines
  • risk factors
  • target-vessel revascularisation

Cite this