BMJ  2007;334:624 (24 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39129.442164.55 (published 5 March 2007)

Research

Cost effectiveness of clinically appropriate decisions on alternative treatments for angina pectoris: prospective observational study

¹ Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, ² UCLH/UCL Biomedical Research Centre, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, and Department of Statistical Science, University College London, ³ Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, ⁴ Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, London, ⁵ Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London Medical School, London WC1E 6BT

Objective To assess whether revascularisation that is considered to be clinically appropriate is also cost effective.

Design Prospective observational study comparing cost effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, or medical management within groups of patients rated as appropriate for revascularisation.

Setting Three tertiary care centres in London.

Participants Consecutive, unselected patients rated as clinically appropriate (using a nine member Delphi panel) to receive coronary artery bypass grafting only (n=815); percutaneous coronary intervention only (n=385); or both revascularisation procedures (n=520).

Main outcome measure Cost per quality adjusted life year gained over six year follow-up, calculated with a National Health Service cost perspective and discounted at 3.5%/year.

Results Coronary artery bypass grafting cost £22 000 (33 000; $43 000) per quality adjusted life year gained compared with percutaneous coronary intervention among patients appropriate for coronary artery bypass grafting only (59% probability of being cost effective at a cost effectiveness threshold of £30 000 per quality adjusted life year) and £19 000 per quality adjusted life year gained compared with medical management among those appropriate for both types of revascularisation (probability of being cost effective 63%). In none of the three appropriateness groups was percutaneous coronary intervention cost effective at a threshold of £30 000 per quality adjusted life year. Among patients rated appropriate for percutaneous coronary intervention only, the cost per quality adjusted life year gained for percutaneous coronary intervention compared with medical management was £47 000, exceeding usual cost effectiveness thresholds; in these patients, medical management was most likely to be cost effective (probability 54%).

Conclusions Among patients judged clinically appropriate for coronary revascularisation, coronary artery bypass grafting seemed cost effective but percutaneous coronary intervention did not. Cost effectiveness analysis based on observational data suggests that the clinical benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention may not be sufficient to justify its cost.

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

Related Articles

Consider palliative coronary intervention

Michael R Chester
BMJ 2008 336: 59. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Case presented does not wash

Michael R Chester
BMJ 2007 334: 813-814. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Curbing medical enthusiasm

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

Drugs are as good as PCI in stable coronary artery disease, study shows

Susan Mayor
BMJ 2007 334: 713. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

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]

NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies

James Raftery
BMJ 2001 323: 1300-1303. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical treatment for non-acute coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Heiner C Bucher, Peter Hengstler, Christian Schindler, and Gordon H Guyatt
BMJ 2000 321: 73-77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Taggart, D. P. (2008). Does prior PCI increase the risk of subsequent CABG?. Eur Heart J 29: 573-575 [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]  
• Chester, M. (2008). Coronary heart disease trends in England and Wales from 1984 to 2004: concealed levelling of mortality rates among young adults. Heart 94: 229-229 [Full text]  
• Chester, M. R (2008). Consider palliative coronary intervention. BMJ 336: 59-59 [Full text]  
• Mark, D. B (2007). Percutaneous coronary revascularisation: is it ever worth what it costs?. Heart 93: 1161-1163 [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]  
• Chester, M. R (2007). Case presented does not wash. BMJ 334: 813-814 [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

Timely fillip for Practice Based Commissioning.

Michael R Chester, et al.
bmj.com, 14 Mar 2007 [Full text]

The silence is deafening

M Justin S Zaman
bmj.com, 29 Mar 2007 [Full text]

Full BCIS response is on the website

Martyn R Thomas
bmj.com, 25 Apr 2007 [Full text]