João Addison Pessoa et al. Esmeralci Ferreira Denizar Viana Araújo Edirley Maia … Felipe Souza Maia da Silva Maurício Salles de Oliveira Denilson Campos de Albuquerque
Abstract
Background
The use of drug-eluting stents (DESs), compared with bare-metal stents (BMSs), in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has reduced the rate of restenosis, without an impact on mortality but with an increase in costs. Medical literature lacks randomized studies that economically compare these 2 stent types within the reality of the Brazilian Unified Public Health System (SUS).
Objective
To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between DES and BMS in SUS patients with single-vessel coronary artery disease.
Methods
Over a 3-year period, patients with symptomatic single-vessel coronary artery disease were randomized in a 1:2 ratio to receive a DES or BMS during PCI, with a 1-year clinical follow-up. The evaluation included in-stent restenosis (ISR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), major adverse events, and cost-effectiveness for each group. P-values <0.05 were considered significant.
Results
In the DES group, of 74 patients (96.1%) who completed the follow-up, 1 developed ISR (1.4%), 1 had TLR (1.4%), and 1 died (1.4%), with no cases of thrombosis. In the BMS group, of 141 patients (91.5%), ISR occurred in 14 (10.1%), TLR in 10 (7.3%), death in 3 (2.1%), and thrombosis in 1 (0.74%). In the economic analysis, the cost of the procedure was R$ 5,722.21 in the DES group and R$ 4,085.21 in the BMS group. The effectiveness by ISR and TLR was 8.7% for DES and 5.9% for BMS, with an ICER of R$ 18,816.09 and R$ 27,745.76, respectively.
Conclusions
In the SUS, DESs were cost-effective in accordance with the cost-effectiveness threshold recommended by the World Health Organization (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 115(1):80-89)