PubMed · 12436618
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Toma, T Yamaguchi. 1994. [Thrombolytic therapy with tissue-type plasminogen activator].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12436618/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) compared with bare metal stents (BMSs) as the default strategy in unselected patients treated in the Rapamycin Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) Registry at 1 and 2-years following the procedure. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 508 consecutive patients with de novo lesions exclusively treated with SES were compared with 450 patients treated with BMS from the immediate preceding period. Resource use and costs of the index procedure, and clinical outcomes were prospectively recorded over a 2-year follow-up period. Follow-up costs were measured as unit costs per patient based on the incidence of clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR), to obtain cumulative costs at 1 and 2-years. Cost-effectiveness was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per TVR avoided. The use of SES cost euro 3,036 more per patient at the index procedure, driven by the price of SES. Follow-up costs after 1-year were euro 1,089 less with SES when compared with BMS, due to less TVR, resulting in a net excess cost of euro 1,968 per patient in the SES group, and reduced by a further euro 100 per patient in the second year. The incidence of death or myocardial infarction between groups was similar at 1 and 2 years. Rates of TVR in the SES and BMS groups were 3.7% vs. 10.4%, P<0.01 at 1 year, respectively; and 6.4% vs. 14.7%, P<0.001 at 2 years. The ICER per TVR avoided was euro 29,373 at 1 year, and euro 22,267 at 2 years. CONCLUSION: The use of SES, while significantly beneficial in reducing the need for repeat revascularization, was more expensive and not cost-effective in the RESEARCH registry at either 1 or 2-years when compared with BMS. On the basis of these results, in an unselected population with 1 year of follow-up, the unit price of SES would have to be euro 1,023 in order to be cost-neutral.
AIMS: We investigated the feasibility of assessing coronary artery stent restenosis using a new generation 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography-scanner (MDCT) in comparison to conventional quantitative angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: MDCT was performed in 64 consecutive patients (mean age 58+/-10 years) with previously implanted coronary artery stents (102 stented lesions: mean stent diameter 3.17+/-0.38 mm). Each stent was classified as 'evaluable' or 'unevaluable', and in evaluable stents, the presence of in-stent restenosis (diameter reduction >50%) was determined visually. Results were verified against invasive, quantitative coronary angiography. Fifty-nine stented lesions (58%) were classified as evaluable in MDCT. The mean diameter of evaluable stents was 3.28+/-0.40 mm, whereas the mean diameter of non-evaluable stents was 3.03+/-0.31 mm (P=0.0002). Overall, six of 12 in-stent restenoses were correctly detected by MDCT [50% sensitivity (confidence interval 22-77%)] and in 51 of 90 lesions, in-stent restenosis was correctly ruled out [57% specificity (46-67%)]. In evaluable stents, six of seven in-stent restenoses were correctly detected, and the absence of in-stent stenosis was correctly identified in 51 of 52 cases [sensitivity 86% (42-99%) and specificity 98% (88-100%)]. CONCLUSION: Stent type and diameter influence evaluability concerning in-stent restenosis by MDCT. The rate of assessable stents is low, but in evaluable stents, accuracy for detection of in-stent restenosis can be high.