Cost analysis from two randomized trials of sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES This study sought to analyze the cost of percutaneous coronary interventions with use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients at high risk of restenosis. BACKGROUND Recent studies have shown different clinical efficacy with these drug-eluting stents. Whether this difference extends on cost estimates between the 2 stents is not known. METHODS We included 450 patients with diabetes mellitus and in-stent restenosis from 2 randomized studies comparing SES with PES. Assigned costs for the economic evaluation were the initial hospitalization and all subsequent cardiac-related inpatient/outpatient health resources during 9 to 12 months of clinical follow-up. The economic evaluation was performed from the health insurance system's perspective. RESULTS There were no differences between the 2 study groups regarding mortality (p = 0.78) and myocardial infarction rates (p = 0.76). Target lesion revascularization was performed in 16 patients (7.1%) in the SES group and in 34 patients (15.1%) in the PES group (p = 0.01). Initial hospital costs were not significantly different between the 2 stents (p = 0.53). The follow-up costs were, however, different: 2,684 +/- 2,072EURO per patient treated with SES and 4,527 +/- 6,466EURO per patient treated with PES (p < 0.001). Total costs also differed at the end of the follow-up: 8,924 +/- 3,077EURO per patient treated with SES and 10,903 +/- 7,205EURO per patient treated with PES (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In patients at high risk of restenosis, use of SES is associated with lower costs compared with PES. The cost savings are mainly due to the reduced need of repeat revascularization procedures with SES.