Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous coronary intervention compared to medical therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review
- 386 Downloads
Coronary artery disease (CAD) has significant social and economic implications. It is necessary to create tools to identify the most cost-effectiveness treatments, which can assist clinicians in their therapeutic decisions so that the maximum possible benefit is reached with the lowest possible cost. Effectiveness must be measured by final treatment goals in which the most effective interventions are those with the lowest costs. This study is aimed to systematically review and compare the studies conducted on the cost-effectiveness of the three coronary artery disease treatment strategies (medical treatment, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft). In this systematic review, the databases NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Embase, MEDLINE, Science Direct, and Scopus were searched for studies on the cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to medical therapy (MT) in patients with coronary artery disease between 1 January 2004 to 30 September 2018. The quality appraisal of the included studies was examined using the Consolidated Health Economics Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Out of 186 unique retrievals, 8 studies were included. The results showed that the all studies clearly stated the time horizon of the study and included direct medical costs in their analysis. In addition, in most of the studies, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were the main outcome used for measuring the effectiveness. The studies reported various ranges of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); accordingly, the highest ratio was observed in the USA ($212,800) for PCI v MT and the lowest ratio was observed in Brazil ($4403) for CABG v MT. Although the results of the studies were different in terms of a number of aspects, such as the viewpoint of the study, the study horizons, and the costs of expenditure items, they reached similar results. Based on the result of the present study, it seems that each three treatment strategies for CAD yielded improvements in QALY.
KeywordsCost-effectiveness Coronary artery disease Coronary artery bypass graft Percutaneous coronary intervention Medical therapy Economic evaluation
This study was part of a PhD thesis supported by the Iran University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. IUMS/SHMIS-97-02-136-33863).
Compliance with ethical standards
The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Allender S, Scarborough P, Peto V, Rayner M (2014).European cardiovascular disease statistics 2012 European heart network: Brussels.Google Scholar
- 2.Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Blaha MJ et al (2013) Heart disease and stroke statistics—2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 129(3):232Google Scholar
- 3.Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Bravata DM, Boersma E, Booth J, Brooks MM, Carrié D, Clayton TC, Danchin N, Flather M, Hamm CW, Hueb WA, Kähler J, Kelsey SF, King SB, Kosinski AS, Lopes N, McDonald KM, Rodriguez A, Serruys P, Sigwart U, Stables RH, Owens DK, Pocock SJ (2009) Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet 373(9670):1190–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Sculpher MJ, Buxton MJ, Seed P, Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Parker J, Joy MD, Sowton E, Hampton JR, for RITA trial participants (1994) Health service costs of coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass surgery: the Randomised Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trial. Lancet 344(8927):927–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Serruys PW, Unger F, Sousa JE, Jatene A, Bonnier HJRM, Schönberger JPAM, Buller N, Bonser R, van den Brand M, van Herwerden L, Morel MA, van Hout B, Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study Group (2001) Comparison of coronary-artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. N Engl J Med 344(15):1117–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Weintraub WS, Boden WE, Zhang Z, Kolm P, Zhang Z, Spertus JA, Hartigan P, Veledar E, Jurkovitz C, Bowen J, Maron DJ, O'Rourke R, Dada M, Teo KK, Goeree R, Barnett PG, Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program No. 424 (COURAGE Trial) Investigators and Study Coordinators (2008) Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention in optimally treated stable coronary patients clinical perspective. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 1(1):12–20Google Scholar
- 11.Vieira RDO, Hueb W, Hlatky M, Favarato D, Rezende PC, Garzillo CL et al (2012) Cost-effectiveness analysis for surgical, angioplasty, or medical therapeutics for coronary artery disease: 5-year follow-up of medicine, angioplasty, or surgery study (MASS) II trial. Circulation 126(11_suppl_1):S145–SS50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (2015) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4ed. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
- 13.Almasiankia A, Kavosi Z, Keshtkaran A, Jafari A, Goodarzi S (2015) Equity in health care financing among Iranian households. Shiraz: SEMJ. 16(11–12):6Google Scholar
- 16.Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E, on behalf of the CHEERS Task Force (2013) Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 11(1):6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Melsop KA, Kennedy L, Rihal C, Rogers WJ, Venkitachalam L, Brooks MM, Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) Study Group (2009) Economic outcomes of treatment strategies for type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes trial. Circulation 120(25):2550–2558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Fidan D, Unal B, Critchley J, Capewell S (2007) Economic analysis of treatments reducing coronary heart disease mortality in England and Wales, 2000–2010. J Assoc Physicians 100(5):277–289Google Scholar
- 23.Baltussen RMPM, Hutubessy RCW, Evans DB, Murray CJM (2002) Uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis: probabilistic uncertainty analysis and stochastic league tables. Int J Technol Assess Healthc 18(1):112–119Google Scholar
- 25.Limwattananon S (2014) Sensitivity analysis for handling uncertainty in an economic evaluation. J Med Assoc Thail 97:S59–S64Google Scholar
- 27.Claude J, Schindler C, Kuster GM, Schwenkglenks M, Szucs T, Buser P et al (2004) Cost-effectiveness of invasive versus medical management of elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary artery disease: findings of the randomized trial of invasive versus medical therapy in elderly patients with chronic angina (TIME). Eur Heart J 25(24):2195–2203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, Knudtson M, Dada M, Casperson P, Harris CL, Chaitman BR, Shaw L, Gosselin G, Nawaz S, Title LM, Gau G, Blaustein AS, Booth DC, Bates ER, Spertus JA, Berman DS, Mancini GB, Weintraub WS, COURAGE Trial Research Group (2007) Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 356(15):1503–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar