Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-d8fc5 Total loading time: 0.76 Render date: 2021-09-22T00:37:24.950Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Economic evaluation of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents using a large prospective study in Ontario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2009

Ron Goeree
McMaster University
James M. Bowen
McMaster University
Gord Blackhouse
McMaster University
Charles Lazzam
Trillium Health Centre
Eric Cohen
University of Toronto
Maria Chiu
University of Toronto
Rob Hopkins
McMaster University
Jean-Eric Tarride
McMaster University
Jack V. Tu
University of Toronto


Objectives: To determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) and cost-utility (CU) of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in Ontario using a large prospective “real-world” cohort study and determine the extent to which results vary by patient risk subgroups.

Methods: A field evaluation was conducted based on all stent procedures in the province of Ontario between December 1, 2003, and March 31, 2005, with a minimum subject follow-up of 1 year. Effectiveness data from the study using a propensity-score matched cohort were combined with resource utilization and cost data and quality of life (QOL) data from the published literature in a decision analytic modeling framework to determine 2-year cost-effectiveness (cost per revascularization avoided) and cost-utility (cost per quality-adjusted life-year ([QALY] gained). Stochastic model parameter uncertainty was expressed using probability distributions and analyzed using a probabilistic model. Modeling assumptions were assessed using traditional deterministic sensitivity analysis.

Results: Significant differences in revascularization rates were found for patients with two or more high risk factors. Despite these differences, the CE and CU of DES remained high (e.g., $419,000 per QALY gained in the most favorable patient risk subgroup). In sensitivity analysis, the difference in cost between DES and BMS had an impact on the CE and CU results. For example, at a price differential of $500, the CU of DES was $20,000/QALY for one patient subgroup and DES was dominant (i.e., less costly and more effective) in another.

Conclusions: At current prices, the CE/CU of DES compared with BMS is high even in patient high risk subgroups. As the relative price of DES decrease, the value for money attractiveness of DES increases, especially for selected high risk patients.

General Essays
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1. Austin, PC, Mamdani, MM. A comparison of propensity score methods: A case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Stat Med. 2006;25:20842106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Bagust, A, Grayson, AD, Palmer, ND et al. , Cost effectiveness of drug eluting coronary artery stenting in a UK setting: Cost-utility study. Heart. 2006;92:6874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bakhai, A, Stone, GW, Mahoney, E et al. , Cost effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting stents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization: Results from the TAXUS-IV Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:253261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Beohar, N, Davidson, CJ, Kip, KE et al. , Outcomes and complications associated with off-label and untested use of drug-eluting stents. JAMA. 2007;297:19922000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Bowen, J, Hopkins, R, Chiu, M et al. , Clinical and cost-effectiveness analysis of drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents for percutaneous coronary interventions in Ontario: Final report. Hamilton (ON): Program for Assessment of Technology in Health, McMaster University / St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton; 2007.Google Scholar
6. Briggs, A, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Brophy, JM, Erickson, LJ. Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting coronary stents in Quebec, Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:326333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Brunner-La Rocca, HP, Kaiser, C, Bernheim, A et al. , Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in patients at high or low risk of major cardiac events in the Basel Stent Kosten Effektivitäts Trial (BASKET): An 18-month analysis. Lancet. 2007;370:15211588.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Cardiac Care Network (CCN) of Ontario. 2008.Google Scholar
10. Cohen, DJ, Bakhai, A, Shi, C 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. 2004;110:508514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Curfman, GD. Sirolimus-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:17701771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Eisenstein, EL, Anstrom, KJ, Kong, DF et al. , Clopidogrel use and long-term clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation. JAMA. 2007;297:159168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Ekman, M, Sjogren, I, James, S. Cost-effectiveness of the Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent in the Swedish healthcare system. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2006;40:1724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Galanaud, JP, Delavennat, J, Durand-Zaleski, I. A break-even price calculation for the use of sirolimus-eluting stents in angioplasty. Clin Ther. 2003;25:10071016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Goeree, R, Levin, L. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: The PRUFE framework – an integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:11431156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Greenberg, D, Bakhai, A, Cohen, DJ. Can we afford to eliminate restenosis? Can we afford not to? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:513518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Greenberg, D, Cohen, DJ. Examining the economic impact of restenosis: Implications for the cost-effectiveness of an antiproliferative stent. Z.Kardiol. 91[Suppl 3], 137–143. 2002.Google Scholar
18. Grines, CL, Bonow, RO, Casey DE, Jr et al. , Prevention of premature discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery stents: A science advisory from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, American College of Surgeons, and American Dental Association, with representation from the American College of Physicians. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:734739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Herdeg, C, Oberhoff, M, Baumbach, A et al. , Local paclitaxel delivery for the prevention of restenosis: Biological effects and efficacy in vivo. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:19691976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Hill, R, Bagust, A, Bakhai, A et al. , Coronary artery stents: A rapid systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iiiiiv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Hill, RA, Boland, A, Dickson, R et al. , Drug-eluting stents: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Holmes, DR Jr, Leon, MB, Moses, JW 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. 2004;109:634640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Institute of Clinical and Evaluative Sciences. Toronto: ICES; 2008.Google Scholar
24. Kaiser, C, Brunner-La Rocca, HP et al. , Incremental cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared with a third-generation bare-metal stent in a real-world setting: Randomised Basel Stent Kosten Effektivitats Trial (BASKET). Lancet. 2005;366:921929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Kastrati, A, Hall, D, Schomig, A. Long-term outcome after coronary stenting. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2000;1:4854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Kuukasjarvi, P, Rasanen, P, Malmivaara, A et al. , Economic evaluation of drug-eluting stents: A systematic literature review and model-based cost-utility analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:473479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Lagerqvist, B, James, SK, Stenestrand, U et al. , Long-term outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in Sweden. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:10091019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Laupacis, A, Feeny, D, Detsky, AS et al. , How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ. 1992;146:473481.Google Scholar
29. Ligthart, S, Vlemmix, F, Dendukuri, N et al. , The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: A systematic review. CMAJ. 2007;176:199205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Lord, SJ, Howard, K, Allen, F et al. , A systematic review and economic analysis of drug-eluting coronary stents available in Australia. Med J Aust. 2005;183:464471.Google Scholar
31. Mahieu, J, De Ridder, A, De Graeve, D, Vrints, C, Bosmans, J. Economic analysis of the use of drug-eluting stents from the perspective of Belgian health care. Acta Cardiol. 2007;62:355365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Marroquin, OC, Selzer, F, Mulukutla, SR et al. , A comparison of bare-metal and drug-eluting stents for off-label indications. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:342352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Medical Advisory Secretariat, Cohen, E. Review of drug-eluting coronary stents. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care; 2003 Jan 7.Google Scholar
34. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Drug-eluting stents. Canberra (Australia): Commonwealth of Australia; 2005.Google ScholarPubMed
35. Mittmann, N, Brown, A, Seung, SJ et al. , Economic evaluation of drug eluting stents [Technology Report no 53]. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2005.Google Scholar
36. Morice, MC, Serruys, PW, Sousa, JE et al. , Randomized Study with the Sirolimus-Coated Bx velocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:17731780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Moses, JW, Leon, MB, Popma, JJ et al. , SIRIUS I. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:13151323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Oliva, G, Espallargues, M, Pons, JM. Antiproliferative drug-eluting stents: Systematic review of the benefits and estimate of economic impact. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2004;57:617628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Ong, AT, Daemen, J, van Hout, BA et al. , Cost-effectiveness of the unrestricted use of sirolimus-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents at 1 and 2-year follow-up: Results from the RESEARCH Registry. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:29963003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Ontario Case Costing Initiative. Ontario Case Costing Initiative. Toronto: 2008.Google Scholar
41. Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee. Toronto: OHTAC; 2007.Google Scholar
42. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Schedule of benefits: Physician services under the Health Insurance Act—effective June 3, 2008. Toronto: The Ministry; 2006.Google Scholar
43. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary/Comparative Drug Index—effective June 27, 2008. Toronto: The Ministry; 2007.Google Scholar
44. Polanczyk, CA, Wainstein, MV, Ribeiro, JP. Cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary interventions in Brazil. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2007;88:464474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute. Ontario: PATH; 2008.Google Scholar
46. Rankin, JM, Spinelli, JJ, Carere, RG et al. , Improved clinical outcome after widespread use of coronary-artery stenting in Canada. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:19571965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47. 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;6:159–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Ruffy, R, Kaden, RJ. Projected health and economic benefits of the use of sirolimus-eluting coronary stents. Adv Stud Med. 2003;3:S602S611.Google Scholar
49. Russell, S, anzas, F, Mainar, V. Economic impact of the Taxus coronary stent: Implications for the Spanish healthcare system. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2006;59:889896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Schampaert, E, Cohen, EA, Schluter, M et al. , SIRIUS I. The Canadian study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with long de novo lesions in small native coronary arteries (C-SIRIUS). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:11101115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51. Schofer, J, Schluter, M, Gershlick, AH et al. , SIRIUS I. Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with long atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries: Double-blind, randomised controlled trial (E-SIRIUS). Lancet. 2003;362:10931099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Serruys, PW, Unger, F, Sousa, JE et al. , Comparison of coronary-artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:11171124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53. Shrive, FM, Manns, BJ, Galbraith, PD et al. , Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents. CMAJ. 2005;172:345351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54. Tarricone, R, Marchetti, M, Lamotte, M et al. , What reimbursement for coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents (Structured abstract). Eur J Health Econ. 2004;5:309316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55. Tu, JV, Bowen, J, Chiu, M et al. , Effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents in Ontario. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:13931402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56. van Hout, BA, Serruys, PW, Lemos, PA et al. , One year cost effectiveness of sirolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents in the treatment of single native de novo coronary lesions: An analysis from the RAVEL trial. Heart. 2005;91:507512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Goreree supplementary material


Download Goreree supplementary material(File)
File 48 KB
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Economic evaluation of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents using a large prospective study in Ontario
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Economic evaluation of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents using a large prospective study in Ontario
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Economic evaluation of drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents using a large prospective study in Ontario
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *