Cost-effectiveness modelling of percutaneous coronary interventions in stable XXXX .

@entity1 @entity453 @entity734 @entity299
The objective of this study is to develop a cost-effectiveness model comparing @entity734 ( @entity734 ) vs bare metal stent (BMS) in @entity1 suffering of stable @entity453 . Using a 2-years time horizon, two simulation models have been developed: BMS first line strategy and @entity734 first line strategy. Direct medical costs were estimated considering ambulatory and hospital costs. The effectiveness endpoint was defined as treatment success, which is the absence of major adverse @entity299 . Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out using 10000 Monte-Carlo simulations. @entity734 appeared slightly more efficacious over 2 years (60% of success) when compared to BMS (58% of success). Total costs over 2 years were estimated at 9303     for the @entity734 and at 8926     for bare metal stent. Hence, corresponding mean cost-effectiveness ratios showed slightly lower costs (P < 0.05) per success for the BMS strategy (15520    /success), as compared to the @entity734 strategy (15588    /success). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is 18850     for one additional percent of success. The sequential strategy including BMS as the first option appears to be slightly less efficacious but more cost-effective compared to the strategy including @entity734 as first option. Future modelling approaches should confirm these results as further comparative data in stable @entity453 and long-term evidence become available.
