Moving beyond the cost per quality-adjusted life year: Modelling the budgetary impact and clinical outcomes associated with the use of sirolimus-eluting stents

Canadian Journal of Cardiology

Volumn 21, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 783-787

  Shrive, Fiona M ^a   Ghali, William A ^a,b   Lewis, Steven ^a   Donaldson, Cam ^c   Knudtson, Merril L ^a,b   Manns, Braden J ^a,b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^c NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d FOOTHILLS HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Costs; Drug eluting stent; Economic evaluation; Resource allocation; Restenosis

Indexed keywords

PACLITAXEL; RAPAMYCIN;

ARTICLE; BUDGET; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG ELUTING STENT; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RESTENOSIS; SURVIVAL RATE;

BLOOD VESSEL PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; COATED MATERIALS, BIOCOMPATIBLE; CORONARY RESTENOSIS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; QUALITY OF LIFE; SIROLIMUS; STENTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 23844529264     PISSN: 0828282X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Jamal SM, Shrive FM, Ghali WA, Knudtson ML, Eisenberg MJ; Canadian Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Team (CCORT). In-hospital outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in Canada: 1992/93 to 2000/01. Can J Cardiol 2003;19:782-9.
2. Ryan TJ, Faxon DP, Gunnar RM, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). Circulation 1988;78:486-502.
3. Smith SC Jr, Dove JT, Jacobs AK, et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (Committee to revise the 1993 guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty); Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. ACC/AHA guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention (revision of the 1993 PTCA guidelines) - executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (Committee to revise the 1993 guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty) endorsed by the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2001;103:3019-41.
4. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al; RAVEL Study Group. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1773-80.
5. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al; SIRIUS Investigators. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1315-23.
6. Schampaert E, Cohen EA, Schluter M, et al; C-SIRIUS Investigators. The Canadian study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with long de novo lesions in small native coronary arteries (C-SIRIUS). J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1110-5.
7. Schofer J, Schluter M, Gershlick AH, et al; E-SIRIUS Investigators. Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with long atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries: Double-blind, randomised controlled trial (E-SIRIUS). Lancet 2003;362:1093-9.
8. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, et al; TAXUS-IV Investigators. A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004;350:221-31.
9. Tanabe K, Serruys PW, Grube E, et al. TAXUS III Trial: In-stent restenosis treated with stent-based delivery of paclitaxel incorporated in a slow-release polymer formulation. Circulation 2003;107:559-64.
10. Grube E, Silber S, Hauptmann KE, et al. TAXUS I: Six- and twelve-month results from a randomized, double-blind trial on a slow-release paclitaxel-eluting stent for de novo coronary lesions. Circulation 2003;107:38-42.
11. Coding Guidelines for Drug-Eluting Stents. (Version current at April 2003).
12. Shrive FM, Manns BJ, Galbraith PD, Knudtson ML, Ghali WA; APPROACH Investigators. Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents. CMAJ 2005;172:345-51.
13. Hill R, Bagust A, Bakhai A, et al. Coronary artery stents: A rapid systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:iii-iv,1-242.
14. National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Guidance on the use of coronary artery stents. In: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, eds. Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2003.
15. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992;146:473-81.
16. Donaldson C, Currie G, Mitton C. Cost effectiveness analysis in health care: Contraindications. BMJ 2002;325:891-4.
17. Gafni A, Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technologies: A prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid the problem. CMAJ 1993;148:913-7.
18. Birch S, Gafni A. The 'NICE' approach to technology assessment: An economics perspective. Health Care Manag Sci 2004;7:35-41.
19. Mushlin AI, Hall WJ, Zwanziger J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of automatic implantable cardiac defibrillators: Results from MADIT. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial. Circulation 1998;97:2129-35.
20. O'Brien BJ, Connolly SJ, Goeree R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Results from the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS). Circulation 2001;103:1416-21.
21. Culyer AJ. Equity - some theory and its policy implications. J Med Ethics 2001;27:275-83.
22. Culyer AJ, Wagstaff A. Equity and equality in health and health care. J Health Econ 1993;12:431-57.
23. Dolan P, Cookson R. A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients. Health Policy 2000;51:19-30.
24. Schwappach DL. Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Econ 2003;12:255-67.
25. Weaver WD, Reisman MA, Griffin JJ, et al. Optimum percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty compared with routine stent strategy trial (OPUS-1): A randomised trial. Lancet 2000;355:2199-203.
26. Mitton C, Donaldson C. Tools of the trade: A comparative analysis of approaches to priority setting in healthcare. Health Serv Manage Res 2003;16:96-105.