JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2017
Economic Outcomes of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: 1-Year Results From the ABSORB III Trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Baron Suzanne J, Lei Yang, Chinnakondepalli Khaja, Vilain Katherine, Magnuson Elizabeth A, Kereiakes Dean J, Ellis Stephen G, Stone Gregg W, Cohen David J, ABSORB III Investigators
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared with the Xience everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
BACKGROUND: The ABSORB III trial (Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease) demonstrated that the Absorb scaffold was noninferior to the Xience stent with respect to target lesion failure at 1 year. Whether health care costs differ between the Absorb scaffold and the Xience stent is unknown.
METHODS: We performed a prospective health economic study alongside the ABSORB III trial, in which patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for stable or unstable angina were randomized to receive the Absorb scaffold (n = 1,322) or Xience stent (n = 686). Resource use data were collected through 1 year of follow-up. Costs were assessed using resource-based accounting (for procedures), MedPAR data (for other index hospitalization costs), and Medicare reimbursements (for follow-up costs and physician fees).
RESULTS: Initial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold than the Xience stent ($6,316 ± 1,892 vs. $6,103 ± 1,895; p = 0.02), driven mainly by greater balloon catheter use and the higher cost of the scaffold in the Absorb group. Nonetheless, index hospitalization costs ($15,035 ± 2,992 for Absorb vs. $14,903 ± 3,449 for Xience; p = 0.37) and total 1-year costs ($17,848 ± 6,110 for Absorb vs. $17,498 ± 7,411 for Xience; p = 0.29) were similar between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Although initial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold, there were no differences in total 1-year health care costs between the 2 cohorts. Longer term follow-up is needed to determine whether meaningful cost savings emerge after scaffold resorption. (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb™ BVS, the Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT01751906).
BACKGROUND: The ABSORB III trial (Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease) demonstrated that the Absorb scaffold was noninferior to the Xience stent with respect to target lesion failure at 1 year. Whether health care costs differ between the Absorb scaffold and the Xience stent is unknown.
METHODS: We performed a prospective health economic study alongside the ABSORB III trial, in which patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for stable or unstable angina were randomized to receive the Absorb scaffold (n = 1,322) or Xience stent (n = 686). Resource use data were collected through 1 year of follow-up. Costs were assessed using resource-based accounting (for procedures), MedPAR data (for other index hospitalization costs), and Medicare reimbursements (for follow-up costs and physician fees).
RESULTS: Initial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold than the Xience stent ($6,316 ± 1,892 vs. $6,103 ± 1,895; p = 0.02), driven mainly by greater balloon catheter use and the higher cost of the scaffold in the Absorb group. Nonetheless, index hospitalization costs ($15,035 ± 2,992 for Absorb vs. $14,903 ± 3,449 for Xience; p = 0.37) and total 1-year costs ($17,848 ± 6,110 for Absorb vs. $17,498 ± 7,411 for Xience; p = 0.29) were similar between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Although initial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold, there were no differences in total 1-year health care costs between the 2 cohorts. Longer term follow-up is needed to determine whether meaningful cost savings emerge after scaffold resorption. (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb™ BVS, the Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT01751906).
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Absorbable ImplantsAgedAustraliaCardiovascular AgentsCoronary Artery DiseaseDrug CostsDrug-Eluting StentsEverolimusFemaleHealth Care CostsHospital CostsHumansInsurance, Health, ReimbursementMaleMedicareMiddle AgedModels, EconomicPercutaneous Coronary InterventionProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUnited States