论文部分内容阅读
Objectives: This study sought to compare aggregate medical care costs for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with paclitaxel-eluting stents(PES) and bare-metal stents(BMS) and to formally evaluate the incremental cost effectiveness of PES for patients undergoing single-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention. Background: Although the cost effectiveness of SES has been studied in both clinical trials and decision-analytic models, few data exist on the cost effectiveness of alternative drug-eluting stent(DES) designs. In addition, no clinical trials have specifically examined the cost effectiveness of DES among patients managed without mandatory angiographic follow-up. Methods: We performed a prospective economic evaluation among 1,314 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization randomized to either PES(N=662) or BMS(N=652) in the TAXUS-IV trial. Clinical outcomes, resource use, and costs(from a societal perspective) were assessed prospectively for all patients over a 1-year follow-up period. Cost effectiveness was defined as the incremental cost per target vessel revascularization(TVR) event avoided and was analyzed separately among cohorts assigned to mandatory angiographic follow-up(n=732) or clinical follow-up alone(n=582). Results: The PES reduced TVR by 12.2 events per 100 patients treated, resulting in a 1-year cost difference of ＄572 per patient with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ＄4,678 per TVR avoided and ＄47,798/quality-adjusted life year(QALY) gained. Among patients assigned to clinical follow-up alone, the net 1-year cost difference was ＄97 per patient with cost-effectiveness ratios of ＄760 per TVR event avoided and ＄5,105/QALY gained. Conclusions: In the TAXUS-IV trial, treatment with PES led to substantial reductions in the need for repeat revascularization while increasing 1-year costs only modestly. The cost-effectiveness ratio for PES in the study population compares reasonably with that for other treatments that reduce coronary restenosis, including alternative drug-eluting stent platforms.
Objectives: This study sought to compare aggregate medical care costs for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) and to formally evaluate the incremental cost effectiveness of PES for patients undergoing single-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention. Background: Although the cost effectiveness of SES has been studied in both clinical trials and decision-analytic models, few data exist on the cost effectiveness of alternative drug-eluting stent (DES) designs. examined the cost effectiveness of DES among patients managed without mandatory angiographic follow-up. Methods: We performed a prospective economic evaluation among 1,314 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization randomized to either PES (N = 662) or BMS (N = 652) in the TAXUS -IV trial. Clinical outcomes, resource use, and costs (from a societal perspective) were assessed prospectively for a ll patients over a 1-year follow-up period. Cost effectiveness was defined as the incremental cost per target vessel revascularization (TVR) event avoided and was analyzed separately among cohorts assigned to mandatory angiographic follow-up (n = 732) or clinical follow -up alone (n = 582). Results: The PES reduced TVR by 12.2 events per 100 patients treated, resulting in a 1-year cost difference of $ 572 per patient with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $ 4,678 per TVR avoided and $ Among patients assigned to clinical follow-up alone, the net 1-year cost difference was was $ 97 per patient with cost-effectiveness ratios of $ 760 per TVR event avoided and $ 5,105 / QALY gained. Conclusions: In the TAXUS-IV trial, treatment with PES led to substantial reductions in the need for repeat revascularization while increasing 1-year costs only modestly. The cost-effectiveness ratio for PES in the study population presents reasonably with that for other treatments that reduce coronary restenosis, including alternative drug-eluting stent platforms.