Background: With the aim of reducing restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stents (BMSs) for the treatment of ischemic heart disease, drug-eluting stents (DESs) were introduced in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention in 2002. However, the higher cost of DES in comparison with BMS made it necessary to determine whether their use brings a real economic advantage.
Methods: In order to verify the clinical and economic benefit of DES in comparison with BMS and surgical treatment with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), the Sicily Regional Government arranged for the creation of a directory where patients receiving at least one DES (with sirolimus or with paclitaxel) were enrolled from June 2004 to February 2005. The cost-effectiveness analysis for DES was carried out by means of two decisional models: one referring to patients treated with DES who, without such a device, would have undergone CABG, and the second one referring to patients treated with DES who, without such device, would have received BMS. Cost analysis was carried out from the point of view of the SSR (Servizio Sanitario Regionale, Regional Health Service).
Results: The use of DES on patients destined to CABG generated average unitary differential savings of euro9003, after 9 months of follow-up, and average total differential savings of euro4 438 479. The use of DES on patients destined to BMS gave average unitary differential savings of euro1075, after 9 months of follow-up, and average total differential savings of euro1 052 425. The use of DES instead of BMS and CABG allowed SSR to make average differential savings of euro3760 per successful case. The refund threshold value of DES, setting to zero the SSR average differential savings for patients treated with DES who would otherwise have been treated with BMS, was euro2489.
Conclusion: The medium-term results of the proposed models, tested with sensitivity analysis, demonstrate the use of DES to be justified; moreover, these results could positively influence the attitude of the SSR toward these new therapeutic strategies, which are an improvement on standard therapies, both from a clinical and a financial standpoint.