The cost–effectiveness of strategies in coronary artery disease

References

• European Heart Network. European cardiovascular disease statistics 2012. Available from: www.ehnheart.org/cvd-statistics.html [Last accessed 20 June 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Go AS, Mazaffanan D, Roger VL, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics - 2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2014;129(3):28-292
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hlatky MA, Owens DK, Sanders GD. Cost-effectiveness as an outcome in randomized clinical trials. Clin Trials 2006;3(6):543-51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, et al. Bias in published cost-effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ 2006;332(7543):699-703
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claude J, Schindler C, Kuster GM, et al. for the Trial of invasive versus medical therapy in the elderly (TIME) investigators. Cost-effectiveness of invasive versus medical management of elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 2004;25(24):2195-203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. COURAGE Trial Research Group. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007;356(15):1503-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weintraub WS, Boden WE, Zhang Z, et al. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program No. 424 (COURAGE Trial) Investigators and Study Coordinators. Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention in optimally treated stable coronary patients. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2008;1(1):12-20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Favarato D, Hueb W, Gersh BJ, et al. Relative cost comparison of treatments for coronary artery disease: the first year follow-up of MASS II study. Circulation 2003;108(suppl 1):21-3
   Google Scholar
• Vieira RD, Hueb W, Hlatky M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis for surgical, angioplasty, or medical therapeutics for coronary artery disease: 5-year follow-up of medicine, angioplasty, or surgery study (MASS) II trial. Circulation 2012;126(11 Suppl 1):145-50
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Melsop KA, et al. for the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) Study Group. Economic outcomes of treatment strategies for type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease in the bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation 2 diabetes trial. Circulation 2009;120(25):2550-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. N Engl J Med 1996;335(4):217-25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serruys PW, Unger F, Sousa JE, et al. Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study Group. Comparison of coronary-artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. N Engl J Med 2001;344(15):1117-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (the Stent or Surgery trial): a randomized controlled trial. SoS Investigators. Lancet 2002;360(9338):965-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serruys PW, Ong AT, van Herwerden LA, et al. Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46(4):575-81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hueb W, Lopes NH, Gersh BJ, et al. Five-year follow-up of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS-II): a randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 2007;115(9):1082-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abizaid A, Costa MA, Centemero M, et al. Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study Group. Clinical and economic impact of diabetes mellitus on percutaneous and surgical treatment of multivessel coronary disease patients: insights from the Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study (ARTS) trial. Circulation 2001;104(5):533-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hlatky MA, Rogers WJ, Johnstone I, et al. Medical care costs and quality of life after randomization to coronary angioplasty or coronary bypass surgery. Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. N Engl J Med 1997;336(2):92-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroupe KT, Morrison DA, Hlatky MA, et al. Investigators of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program #385 (AWESOME: Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation). Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafts versus percutaneous coronary intervention for revascularization of high-risk patients. Circulation 2006;114(12):1251-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. FREEDOM Trial Investigators. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 2012;367(25):2375-84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamalesh M, Sharp TG, Tang XC, et al. VA CARDS Investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass surgery in United States veterans with diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61(8):808-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. SYNTAX Investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009;360(10):961-72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapur A, Hall RJ, Malik IS, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients. 1-year results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55(5):432-40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weintraub WS, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Weiss JM, et al. Comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies. N Engl J Med 2012;366(16):1467-76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnuson EA, Farkouh ME, Fuster V, et al. FREEDOM Trial Investigators. Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug eluting stents versus bypass surgery for patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease: results from the FREEDOM trial. Circulation 2013;127(7):820-31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dulisse B, Zhang J, Ryan J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of PCI with or without drug-eluting stents vs bypass surgery for treatment of multivessel coronary disease: 1-year results from the ARTS I and ARTS II trials. Abstract presented at: American Heart Association Scientific Sessions; 15 November 2005; Dallas, Texas, USA
   Google Scholar
• Cohen DJ, Lavelle TA, Van Hout B, et al. Economic outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus bypass surgery for patients with left main or three-vessel coronary artery disease: one-year results from the SYNTAX trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2012;79(2):198-209
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krenn L, Kopp C, Glogar D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease compared to coronary artery bypass surgery five-years after intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014. [Epub ahead of print]
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karnon J, Brennan A, Pandor A, et al. Modeling the long term cost effectiveness of clopidogrel for the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events in the UK. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21(1):101-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durand-Zaleski I, Bertrand M. The value of clopidogrel versus aspirin in reducing atherothrombotic events: the CAPRIE study. Pharmacoeconomics 2004;22(Suppl 4):19-27
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schleinitz MD, Weiss JP, Owens DK. Clopidogrel versus aspirin for secondary prophylaxis of vascular events: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Med 2004;116(12):797-806
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longman JF, Heeg BM, Herlitz J, van Hout BA. Costs and consequences of clopidogrel versus aspirin for secondary prevention of ischemic events in (high-risk) atherosclerotic patients in Sweden: a lifetime model based on the CAPRIE trial and high-risk CAPRIE subpopulations. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2010;8(4):251-65
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kourlaba G, Fragoulakis V, Maniadakis N. Clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients with atherothrombosis: a CAPRIE-based cost-effectiveness model for Greece. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2012;10(5):331-42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen J, Bhatt DL, Dunn ES, et al. Cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel plus aspirin versus aspirin alone for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events: results from the CHARISMA trial. Value Health 2009;12(6):872-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan PS, Nallamothu BK, Gurm HS, et al. Incremental benefit and cost-effectiveness of high-dose statin therapy in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 2007;115(18):2398-409
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen TR, Faergeman O, Kastelein JJ, et al. Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering (IDEAL) Study Group. High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294(19):2437-45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindgren P, Graff J, Olsson AG, IDEAL trial investigators. Cost-effectiveness of high-dose atorvastatin compared with regular dose simvastatin. Eur Heart J 2007;28(12):1448-53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner M, Lindgren P, Merikle E, et al. Economic evaluation of high-dose (80mg/day) atorvastatin treatment compared with standard-dose (20 mg/day to 40mg/day) simvastatin treatment in Canada based on the Incremental Decrease in End-Points Through Aggressive Lipid-Lowering (IDEAL) trial. Can J Cardiol 2009;25(11):362-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009;360(3):213-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siebert U, Arvandi M, Gothe RM, et al. Improving the quality of percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel disease in Australia: cost-effectiveness, public health implications, and budget impact of FFR-guided PCI. Heart Lung Circ 2014;23(6):527-33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve–guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2012;367(11):991-1001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fearon WF, Shilane D, Pijls NHJ, et al. on behalf of the Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 2 (FAME 2) Investigators. Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease and abnormal fractional flow reserve. Circulation 2013;128(12):1335-40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen DJ, Bakhai A, Shi C, et al. SIRIUS Investigators. Cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of complex coronary stenoses: results from the sirolimus-eluting balloon expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions (SIRIUS) trial. Circulation 2004;110(5):508-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakhai A, Stone GW, Mahoney E, et al. TAXUS-IV Investigators. Cost effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization: results from the TAXUS-IV Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48(2):253-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filion KB, Roy AM, Baboushkin T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents including the economic impact of late stent thrombosis. Am J Cardiol 2009;103(3):338-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shrive FM, Manns BJ, Galbraith PD, et al. Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents. Can Med Assoc J 2005;172(3):345-51
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinfret S, Cohen DJ, Tahami Monfared AA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the sirolimus-eluting stent in high-risk patients in Canada: an analysis from the C-SIRIUS trial. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2006;6(3):159-68
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bischof M, Briel M, Bucher HC, Nordmann A. Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in a US Medicare setting: a cost-utility analysis with 3-year clinical follow-up data. Value Health 2009;12(5):649-56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg MJ. Drug-eluting stents: the price is not right. Circulation 2006;114(16):1745-54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kastanioti C. Costs, clinical outcomes, and health-related quality of life of off-pump vs on-pump coronary bypass surgery. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2007;6(1):54-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Girardi PB, Hueb W, Nogueira CR, et al. Comparative costs between myocardial revascularization with or without extracorporeal circulation. Arq Bras Cardiol 2008;91(6):340-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner TH, Hattler B, Bishawi M, et al. for the VA #517 randomized on/off bypass (ROOBY) study group. On-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a multisite trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2013;96(3):770-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar