Amin and colleagues have attempted to estimate the cost savings to the US health-care system if drug-eluting coronary stents were more selectively used in patients at low risk of restenosis. Their results and conclusions raise statistical, societal, and ethical issues that need to be considered before this approach should be widely embraced.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
Stratification of coronary artery disease patients for revascularization procedure based on estimating adverse effects
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making Open Access 14 February 2015
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Holmes, D. R. Jr et al. Analysis of 1-year clinical outcomes in the SIRIUS trial: a randomized trial of a sirolimus-eluting stent versus a standard stent in patients at high risk for coronary restenosis. Circulation 109, 634–640 (2004).
Cohen, D. J. et al. 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 110, 508–514 (2004).
Amin, A. P. et al. Use of drug-eluting stents as a function of predicted benefit: clinical and economic implications of current practice. Arch. Intern. Med. 9, 1–8 (2012).
Tu, J. V. et al. Effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents in Ontario. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 1393–1402 (2007).
Ellis, S. G. et al. Real-world bare metal stenting: identification of patients at low or very low risk of 9-month coronary revascularization. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 63, 135–140 (2004).
Yeh, R. W. et al. Predicting the restenosis benefit of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 124, 1557–1564 (2011).
Cutlip, D. E. et al. Clinical restenosis after coronary stenting: perspectives from multicenter clinical trials. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 40, 2082–2089 (2002).
Kirtane, A. J. et al. Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting and bare metal stents: comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies. Circulation 119, 3198–3206 (2009).
Levine, G. N. et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 58, e44–e122 (2011).
Schafer, P. E. et al. Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in clinical practice. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 4, 408–415 (2011).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
S. G. Ellis has acted as a consultant for Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific. M. A. Cavender declares no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cavender, M., Ellis, S. Stent choice and the hidden consequences of cost savings. Nat Rev Cardiol 9, 559–560 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2012.124
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2012.124
This article is cited by
-
Stratification of coronary artery disease patients for revascularization procedure based on estimating adverse effects
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (2015)
