A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention vs. surgery for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease in the drug-eluting stent era
Open Access
- 11 February 2016
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in European Heart Journal - Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes
- Vol. 2 (4), 261-270
- https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcw007
Abstract
The suitability of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), for patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) remains a contentious topic. While the body of evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of these revascularization strategies is growing, there is limited evidence concerning their long-term cost-effectiveness. We aim to critically appraise the body of literature investigating the cost-effectiveness of CABG compared with PCI using stents, and to assess the quality of the economic evidence available. A systematic review was performed across six electronic databases; Medline, Embase, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the health technology assessment database, and the Cochrane Library. All studies comparing economic attractiveness of CABG vs. PCI using bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES) in balanced groups of patients were considered. Sixteen studies were included. These comprised studies of conventional CABG vs. BMS (n = 8), or DES (n = 4); off-pump CABG vs. BMS (n = 2), or DES (n = 1); and minimally invasive direct CABG vs. BMS (n = 2). The majority adopted a healthcare payer perspective (n = 14). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported across studies varied widely according to perspective and time horizon. Favourable lifetime ICERs were reported for CABG in three trials. For patients with left main coronary artery disease, however, DES was reported as the dominant (more effective and cost-saving) strategy in one study. Overall, CABG rather than PCI was the favoured cost-effective treatment for complex MVCAD in the long term. While the evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of DES compared with CABG is growing, there is a need for more evaluations adopting a societal perspective, and time horizons of a lifetime or 10 or more years.Funding Information
- National Heart Foundation (PC 10M 5457)
This publication has 43 references indexed in Scilit:
- Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2015 UpdateCirculation, 2015
- Prolonged effectiveness of coronary artery bypass surgery versus drug-eluting stents in diabetics with multi-vessel disease: An updated systematic review and meta-analysisInternational Journal of Cardiology, 2014
- Epidemiological studies of CHD and the evolution of preventive cardiologyNature Reviews Cardiology, 2014
- Stent Thrombosis With Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents Compared With Bare-Metal StentsCirculation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2014
- Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trialThe Lancet, 2013
- Strategies for Multivessel Revascularization in Patients with DiabetesThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Provides Long-Term Results Superior to Percutaneous Coronary InterventionHeart, Lung and Circulation, 2012
- Cost-effectiveness analyses of drug eluting stents versus bare metal stents: A systematic review of the literatureHealth Policy, 2009
- Coronary artery bypass graft vs. percutaneous coronary angioplasty: CABG on the rebound?Current Opinion in Cardiology, 2007
- Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting is Still the Best Treatment for Multivessel and Left Main Disease, But Patients Need to KnowThe Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2006