SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.80 número5Beneficios y complicaciones del implante directo de prótesis aórtica autoexpandible para el tratamiento de la estenosisvalvular aórtica graveTratamiento endovascular de los aneurismas toracoabdominales tipo IV índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

  • No hay articulos citadosCitado por SciELO

Links relacionados

  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


Revista argentina de cardiología

versión On-line ISSN 1850-3748

Resumen

CARRILLO GOMEZ, Diana C; ORTIZ SIERRA, María C; CEPEDA GIL, Magda C  y  GUEVARA CUELLAR, César A. Cost-Effectiveness of Drug Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Literature ReviewCost-Effectiveness of Drug Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Literature Review. Rev. argent. cardiol. [online]. 2012, vol.80, n.5, pp.366-376. ISSN 1850-3748.

Objective The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic literature review to determine whether coronary disease endovascular therapy with drug eluting stents (DES) compared with bare metal stents (BMS) is cost-effective. Methods A systematic review was performed in Pubmed/Medline, Embase, CDRS, NCBI, Hinari, CRD, DARE, NHSEED, HTA, HSRPROJ, HSTAT electronic databases to identify full economic evaluation studies with health care perspective reporting the relationship between cost/absolute risk reduction and cost/QALY, without date or language limitations. Results Sixteen studies were included (21807 participants). Paclitaxel or sirolimus DES compared with BMS were evaluated in five studies (31.25%), 31.25% assessed only sirolimus eluting stents, 25% only paclitaxel eluting stents and 12.5% zotarolimus eluting stents. Health care payment perspective was explicit in 93.75% of the studies. The distribution of patient characteristics was similar in all groups and balanced in observational studies. Six of the 16 studies concluded that DES were not cost-effective in their population, but that in subgroups at greater risk of restenosis or with multiple vessel disease the therapy was cost-effective. Conclusions The studies were consistent in the reduction of target vessel revascularization frequency with DES compared to BMS without affecting mortality at 12 month follow-up. The intervention was cost-effective in studies at greater risk of restenosis or with multiple vessel disease.

Palabras clave : Stents; Cost-benefit analysis; Coronary disease; Myocardial infarction; Systematic review.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Español     · Español ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License Todo el contenido de esta revista, excepto dónde está identificado, está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons