Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, University of Missouri-Kansas City, School of Medicine, 4401 Wornall Rd, Kansas City, MO 64111, USA.
Circulation. 2011 Aug 30;124(9):1028-37. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.978593. Epub 2011 Aug 15.
Although the benefits of drug-eluting stents (DES) for reducing restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention are well established, the impact of alternative rates of DES use on population-level outcomes is unknown.
We used data from the Evaluation of Drug Eluting Stents and Ischemic Events (EVENT) registry to examine the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of varying DES use rates in routine care. Between 2004 and 2007, 10,144 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were enrolled in the EVENT registry at 55 US centers. Clinical outcomes and cardiovascular-specific costs were assessed prospectively over 1 year of follow-up. Use of DES decreased from 92 in 2004 to 2006 (liberal use era; n=7587) to 68 in 2007 (selective use era; n=2557; P<0.001). One-year rates of death or myocardial infarction were similar in both eras. Over this time period, the incidence of target lesion revascularization increased from 4.1 to 5.1, an absolute increase of 1.0 (95 confidence interval, 0.1 to 1.9; P=0.03), whereas total cardiovascular costs per patient decreased by $401 (95 confidence interval, 131 to 671; P=0.004). The risk-adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the liberal versus selective DES era was $16,000 per target lesion revascularization event avoided, $27,000 per repeat revascularization avoided, and $433 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
In this prospective registry, a temporal reduction in DES use was associated with a small increase in target lesion revascularization and a modest reduction in total cardiovascular costs. These findings suggest that although clinical outcomes are marginally better with unrestricted DES use, this approach represents a relatively inefficient use of healthcare resources relative to several common benchmarks for cost-effective care.
虽然药物洗脱支架(DES)在降低经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后的再狭窄方面的益处已得到充分证实,但替代的 DES 使用率对人群水平结局的影响尚不清楚。
我们使用来自评估药物洗脱支架和缺血事件(EVENT)登记处的数据,研究了常规护理中不同 DES 使用率对临床影响和成本效益的影响。在 2004 年至 2007 年间,10144 名接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者在 EVENT 登记处的 55 个美国中心注册。在 1 年的随访期间,前瞻性评估了临床结果和心血管特定成本。DES 的使用从 2004 年至 2006 年(宽松使用时代;n=7587)的 92 下降到 2007 年(选择性使用时代;n=2557;P<0.001)。两个时代的 1 年死亡率或心肌梗死发生率相似。在此期间,靶病变血运重建的发生率从 4.1%增加到 5.1%,绝对增加 1.0(95%置信区间,0.1 至 1.9;P=0.03),而每位患者的心血管总费用降低了 401 美元(95%置信区间,131 至 671;P=0.004)。宽松与选择性 DES 时代的风险调整增量成本效益比为每例避免靶病变血运重建事件 16000 美元,每例避免再次血运重建 27000 美元,每例获得质量调整生命年增加 433000 美元。
在这项前瞻性登记研究中,DES 使用的时间减少与靶病变血运重建的小幅度增加和心血管总成本的适度降低相关。这些发现表明,尽管无限制使用 DES 可使临床结果略有改善,但与几种常见的成本效益护理基准相比,这种方法代表了对医疗资源的相对低效利用。