Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2019
Cost-Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents for Infrapopliteal Lesions in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia: The PADI Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Wakkie Thijs, Konijn Louise C D, van Herpen Nils P C, Maessen Martijn F H, Spreen Marlon I, Wever Jan J, Statius van Eps Randolph G, Veger Hugo T, van Dijk Lukas C, Mali Willem P Th M, van Overhagen Hans
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Drug-eluting stents (DES) improve clinical and morphological long-term results compared to percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with bailout bare metal stenting (BMS) in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) and infrapopliteal lesions (PADI trial). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of DES compared to PTA ± BMS in cooperation with Dutch health insurance company VGZ, using data from the PADI trial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the PADI trial, adults with CLI (Rutherford category ≥ 4) and infrapopliteal lesions were randomized to receive DES with paclitaxel or PTA ± BMS. Seventy-four limbs (73 patients) were treated with DES and 66 limbs (64 patients) with PTA ± BMS. The costs were calculated by using the mean costs per stent multiplied by the mean number of stents used per patient (€750 × 1.8 for DES vs €250 × 0.3 for PTA ± BMS). These costs were compared with the costs of major amputation (€16.000) and rehabilitation (first year €15.750, second year €7.375 and third year €3.600).
RESULTS: The 5-year major amputation rate was lower in the DES group (19.3% vs 34.0% for PTA ± BMS; p = 0.091). In addition, the 5-year amputation-free survival and event-free survival were significantly higher in the DES group (31.8% vs 20.4%, p=0.043; and 26.2% vs 15.3%, p=0.041, respectively). After 1 year, the cost difference per patient between DES and PTA ± BMS is €1.679 in favor of DES and €2.694 after 3 years.
CONCLUSION: In our analysis, DES are cost-effective due to the higher hospital costs of amputation and rehabilitation in the PTA ± BMS group.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1b, analysis based on clinically sensible costs and randomized controlled trial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the PADI trial, adults with CLI (Rutherford category ≥ 4) and infrapopliteal lesions were randomized to receive DES with paclitaxel or PTA ± BMS. Seventy-four limbs (73 patients) were treated with DES and 66 limbs (64 patients) with PTA ± BMS. The costs were calculated by using the mean costs per stent multiplied by the mean number of stents used per patient (€750 × 1.8 for DES vs €250 × 0.3 for PTA ± BMS). These costs were compared with the costs of major amputation (€16.000) and rehabilitation (first year €15.750, second year €7.375 and third year €3.600).
RESULTS: The 5-year major amputation rate was lower in the DES group (19.3% vs 34.0% for PTA ± BMS; p = 0.091). In addition, the 5-year amputation-free survival and event-free survival were significantly higher in the DES group (31.8% vs 20.4%, p=0.043; and 26.2% vs 15.3%, p=0.041, respectively). After 1 year, the cost difference per patient between DES and PTA ± BMS is €1.679 in favor of DES and €2.694 after 3 years.
CONCLUSION: In our analysis, DES are cost-effective due to the higher hospital costs of amputation and rehabilitation in the PTA ± BMS group.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1b, analysis based on clinically sensible costs and randomized controlled trial.