BMJ  2007;334:621 (24 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39112.480023.BE (published 2 March 2007)

Research

Cost effectiveness analysis of minimally invasive internal thoracic artery bypass versus percutaneous revascularisation for isolated lesions of the left anterior descending artery

¹ Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London W2 1NY, ² Tanaka Business School, Imperial College London

Objective To compare the cost effectiveness of percutaneous transluminal coronary artery stenting with minimally invasive internal thoracic artery bypass for isolated lesions of the left anterior descending artery.

Design Cost effectiveness analysis.

Data sources Embase, Medline, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Health Technology Assessment databases (1966-2005), and reference sources for utility values and economical variables.

Methods Decision analytical modelling and Markov simulation were used to model medium and long term costs, quality of life, and cost effectiveness after either intervention using data from referenced sources. Probabilistic sensitivity and alternative analyses were used to investigate the effect of uncertainty about the value of model variables and model structure.

Results Stenting was the dominant strategy in the first two years, being both more effective and less costly than bypass surgery. In the third year bypass surgery still remained more expensive but became marginally more effective. As the incremental cost effectiveness was £1 108 130.40 (1 682 146.00; $2 179 194) per quality adjusted life year (QALY), the additional effectiveness could not be said to justify the additional cost at this stage. By five years, however, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £28 042.95 per QALY began to compare favourably with other interventions. At 10 years the additional effectiveness of 0.132 QALYs (range –0.166 to 0.430) probably justified the additional cost of £829.02 (range £205.56 to £1452.48), with an incremental cost effectiveness of £6274.02 per QALY. Sensitivity and alternative analysis showed the results were sensitive to the time horizon and stent type.

Conclusions Minimally invasive left internal thoracic artery bypass may be a more cost effective medium and long term alternative to percutaneous transluminal coronary artery stenting.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

A sterile debate

Stephen Westaby, Keith Channon, and Adrian Banning
BMJ 2007 335: 111. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Curbing medical enthusiasm

Elizabeth Loder
BMJ 2007 334: 0. [Extract] [Full Text]

Stents or surgery?

Douglas Kamerow
BMJ 2007 334: 0. [Extract] [Full Text]

Coronary revascularisation

David P Taggart
BMJ 2007 334: 593-594. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Jones, R. H. (2008). The Year in Cardiovascular Surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 51: 1707-1718 [Full text]  
• Rao, C., Stanbridge, R. D. L., Chikwe, J., Pepper, J., Skapinakis, P., Aziz, O., Darzi, A., Athanasiou, T. (2008). Does Previous Percutaneous Coronary Stenting Compromise the Long-Term Efficacy of Subsequent Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery? A Microsimulation Study. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 85: 501-507 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Gershlick, T., Thomas, M. (2007). PCI or CABG: which patients and at what cost?. Heart 93: 1188-1190 [Full text]  
• Lindsay, A. (2007). JournalScan. Heart 93: 1008-1010 [Full text]  
• Westaby, S., Channon, K., Banning, A. (2007). A sterile debate. BMJ 335: 111-111 [Full text]  
• (2007). Stenting vs. Coronary Bypass Surgery for CAD. JWatch General 2007: 1-1 [Full text]  
• Taggart, D. P (2007). Coronary revascularisation. BMJ 334: 593-594 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Certainty about uncertainty

Matthias Bischof
bmj.com, 4 Apr 2007 [Full text]

Handling Uncertainty

Thanos Athanasiou, et al.
bmj.com, 6 Apr 2007 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>