Use of Drug-Eluting Stents as a Function of Predicted Benefit: Clinical and Economic Implications of Current Practice | Cardiology | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.227.34. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Saia F, Marzocchi A, Serruys PW. Drug-eluting stents. The third revolution in percutaneous coronary intervention.  Ital Heart J. 2005;6(4):289-30315902927PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Kirtane AJ, Gupta A, Iyengar S,  et al.  Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting and bare metal stents: comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies.  Circulation. 2009;119(25):3198-320619528338PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Gualano SK, Gurm HS, Share D,  et al.  Temporal trends in the use of drug-eluting stents for approved and off-label indications: a longitudinal analysis of a large multicenter percutaneous coronary intervention registry.  Clin Cardiol. 2010;33(2):111-11620186993PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Krone RJ, Rao SV, Dai D,  et al; ACC/NCDR Investigators.  Acceptance, panic, and partial recovery the pattern of usage of drug-eluting stents after introduction in the U.S. (a report from the American College of Cardiology/National Cardiovascular Data Registry).  JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(9):902-91020850088PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Lopez JJ, Keyes MJ, Nathan S,  et al.  Rapid adoption of drug-eluting stents: clinical practices and outcomes from the early drug-eluting stent era.  Am Heart J. 2010;160(4):767-77420934573PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Yeh RW, Chandra M, McCulloch CE, Go AS. Accounting for the mortality benefit of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: a comparison of methods in a retrospective cohort study.  BMC Med. 2011;9:7821702899PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Stone GW, Parise H, Witzenbichler B,  et al.  Selection criteria for drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents and the impact of routine angiographic follow-up: 2-year insights from the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(19):1597-160420888162PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Tu JV, Bowen J, Chiu M,  et al.  Effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents in Ontario.  N Engl J Med. 2007;357(14):1393-140217914040PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Varani E, Guastaroba P, Di Tanna GL,  et al.  Long-term clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis in multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions: comparison of drug-eluting stents, bare-metal stents and a mixed approach in patients at high and low risk of repeat revascularisation.  EuroIntervention. 2010;5(8):953-96120542781PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Bertrand OF, Faurie B, Larose E,  et al.  Clinical outcomes after multilesion percutaneous coronary intervention: comparison between exclusive and selective use of drug-eluting stents.  J Invasive Cardiol. 2008;20(3):99-10418316823PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Schapiro-Dufour E, Cucherat M, Velzenberger E, Galmiche H, Denis C, Machecourt J. Drug-eluting stents in patients at high risk of restenosis: assessment for France.  Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(2):108-11721473811PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Ryan J, Cohen DJ. Are drug-eluting stents cost-effective? It depends on whom you ask.  Circulation. 2006;114(16):1736-174417043177PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Vaitkus PT. Common sense, dollars and cents, and drug-eluting stents.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(2):268-26916843173PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Groeneveld PW, Suh JJ, Matta MA. The costs and quality-of-life outcomes of drug-eluting coronary stents: a systematic review.  J Interv Cardiol. 2007;20(1):1-917300390PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Chew DP. Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: if only all things were equal.  Med J Aust. 2005;182(8):376-37715850431PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Eisenberg MJ. Drug-eluting stents: the price is not right.  Circulation. 2006;114(16):1745-175417043178PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Groeneveld PW, Polsky D, Yang F, Yang L, Epstein AJ. The impact of new cardiovascular device technology on health care costs.  Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(14):1289-129121518936PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
McFadden EP, Stabile E, Regar E,  et al.  Late thrombosis in drug-eluting coronary stents after discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy.  Lancet. 2004;364(9444):1519-152115500897PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Pfisterer M, Brunner-La Rocca HP, Buser PT,  et al; BASKET-LATE Investigators.  Late clinical events after clopidogrel discontinuation may limit the benefit of drug-eluting stents: an observational study of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(12):2584-259117174201PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Spertus JA, Kettelkamp R, Vance C,  et al.  Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of premature discontinuation of thienopyridine therapy after drug-eluting stent placement: results from the PREMIER registry.  Circulation. 2006;113(24):2803-280916769908PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Shuchman M. Debating the risks of drug-eluting stents.  N Engl J Med. 2007;356(4):325-32817251527PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
National Cardiovascular Data Registry.  CathPCI Registry. http://www.ncdr.com/WebNCDR/elements.aspx. Accessed December 15, 2011
23.
Yeh RW, Normand SL, Wolf RE,  et al.  Predicting the restenosis benefit of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents in percutaneous coronary intervention.  Circulation. 2011;124(14):1557-156421900079PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Zou G. A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data.  Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7):702-70615033648PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Yelland LN, Salter AB, Ryan P. Performance of the modified Poisson regression approach for estimating relative risks from clustered prospective data.  Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(8):984-99221841157PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
Zou GY, Donner A. Extension of the modified Poisson regression model to prospective studies with correlated binary data [published online November 8, 2011].  Stat Methods Med Res. 2011;22072596PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
Popma JJ, Weiner B, Cowley MJ, Simonton C, McCormick D, Feldman T. FDA advisory panel on the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents: summary of findings and recommendations.  J Interv Cardiol. 2007;20(6):425-44618042048PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Camenzind E, Steg PG, Wijns W. Stent thrombosis late after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents: a cause for concern.  Circulation. 2007;115(11):1440-145517344324PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM,  et al; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.  Heart disease and stroke statistics—2011 update: a report from the American Heart Association.  Circulation. 2011;123(4):e18-e20921160056PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM,  et al; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction); American College of Emergency Physicians; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Thoracic Surgeons; American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.  ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-Elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(7):e1-e15717692738PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM,  et al; 2011 Writing Group Members; ACCF/AHA Task Force Members.  2011 ACCF/AHA Focused Update Incorporated Into the ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.  Circulation. 2011;123(18):e426-e57921444888PubMedGoogle Scholar
32.
Venkitachalam L, Lei Y, Stolker JM,  et al; EVENT Registry Investigators.  Clinical and economic outcomes of liberal versus selective drug-eluting stent use: insights from temporal analysis of the multicenter Evaluation of Drug Eluting Stents and Ischemic Events (EVENT) registry.  Circulation. 2011;124(9):1028-103721844081PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School.  MassDAC Online Risk Calculators. http://www.massdac.org/riskcalc_revasc. Accessed December 15, 2011
34.
Mauri L, Kereiakes DJ, Normand SL,  et al.  Rationale and design of the dual antiplatelet therapy study, a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial to assess the effectiveness and safety of 12 versus 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in subjects undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with either drug-eluting stent or bare metal stent placement for the treatment of coronary artery lesions.  Am Heart J. 2010;160(6):1035-104121146655PubMedGoogle Scholar
Original Investigation
Aug 13/27, 2012

Use of Drug-Eluting Stents as a Function of Predicted Benefit: Clinical and Economic Implications of Current Practice

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Barnes Jewish Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri (Dr Amin); Saint Luke's Mid America Heart and Vascular Institute, Kansas City, Missouri (Drs Spertus, Cohen, Chhatriwalla, and Salisbury, Mr Kennedy, and Ms Vilain); The University of Missouri, Kansas City (Drs Spertus, Cohen, Salisbury, and Venkitachalam); Department of Preventive Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City (Dr Lai); Cardiology Divisions, Departments of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital (Dr Mauri) and Massachusetts General Hospital (Dr Yeh), Harvard Medical School, Boston; Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston (Dr Normand); Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston (Dr Normand); Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora (Drs Rumsfeld and Messenger); and The Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver, Colorado (Dr Rumsfeld).

Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(15):1145-1152. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3093
Abstract

Background Benefits of drug-eluting stents (DES) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are greatest in those at the highest risk of target-vessel revascularization (TVR). Drug-eluting stents cost more than bare-metal stents (BMS) and necessitate prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), which increases costs, bleeding risk, and risk of complications if DAPT is prematurely discontinued. Our objective was to assess whether DES are preferentially used in patients with higher predicted TVR risk and to estimate if lower use of DES in low-TVR-risk patients would be more cost-effective than the existing DES use pattern.

Methods We analyzed more than 1.5 million PCI procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI registry from 2004 through 2010 and estimated 1-year TVR risk with BMS using a validated model. We examined the association between TVR risk and DES use and the cost-effectiveness of lower DES use in low-TVR-risk patients (50% less DES use among patients with <10% TVR risk) compared with existing DES use.

Results There was marked variation in physicians' use of DES (range 2%-100%). Use of DES was high across all predicted TVR risk categories (73.9% in TVR risk <10%; 78.0% in TVR risk 10%-20%; and 83.2% in TVR risk >20%), with a modest relationship between TVR risk and DES use (relative risk, 1.005 per 1% increase in TVR risk [95% CI, 1.005-1.006]). Reducing DES use by 50% in low-TVR-risk patients was projected to lower US health care costs by $205 million per year while increasing the overall TVR event rate by 0.5% (95% CI, 0.49%-0.51%) in absolute terms.

Conclusions Use of DES in the United States varies widely among physicians, with only a modest correlation to patients' risk of restenosis. Less DES use among patients with low risk of restenosis has the potential for significant cost savings for the US health care system while minimally increasing restenosis events.

×