A Brazilian cost-utility analysis of trabecular micro-bypass with iStent inject® for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma / Análise de custo-utilidade do implante trabecular iStent inject® para o tratamento do glaucoma de ângulo aberto no Brasil

ABSTRACT Purpose To evaluate the cost-utility of the iStent inject® for the treatment of mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma (OAG) within the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). Methods A Markov model was developed, in which the effectiveness outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER: R$ / QALY quality-adjusted life-year). Direct medical costs were obtained from the SUS perspective. The base case comprised of a hypothetical cohort of patients with OAG using topical medication and being managed according to the Clinical Protocol and Therapeutic Guidelines (PCDT) and a real-world setting based on data from Datasus. The model's robustness through sensitivity analyses was tested. Results In the PCDT base case setting, the trabecular micro-bypass implant provided gains of 0.47 QALYs and an ICER of R$7,996.66/QALY compared to treatment with topical medication. In the real-world setting based on data from Datasus, the trabecular micro-bypass implant, provided gains of 0.47 QALYs and an ICER of R$4,485.68/QALY compared to treatment with topical medication. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion Incorporating iStent inject® to SUS provides an improvement in the patient's quality of life with an additional cost that warrants the benefit provided to patients. Results may be considered cost-effective compared to topical medication.

RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar a relação custo-utilidade do iStent inject® para o tratamento do glaucoma de ângulo aberto leve a moderado no Sistema Único de Saúde. Métodos Foi desenvolvido um modelo de Markov, no qual a medida de resultado de efetividade foi a razão custo-efetividade incremental (razão de custo-efetividade incremental: R$/ano de vida ajustado pela qualidade). Os custos médicos diretos foram obtidos por meio da perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde. O caso base foi composto de uma coorte hipotética de pacientes com glaucoma de ângulo aberto em uso de medicação tópica tratados de acordo com o Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas e um cenário do mundo real baseado em dados do Departamento de Informática do Sistema Único de Saúde. Foi testada a robustez do modelo por meio de análises de sensibilidade. Resultados No cenário base do Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas, o implante trabecular micro-bypass proporcionou ganhos de 0,47 ano de vida ajustado pela qualidade e razão de custo-efetividade incremental de R$7.996,66/ano de vida ajustado pela qualidade em relação ao tratamento com medicação tópica. No cenário real baseado em dados do Departamento de Informática do Sistema Único de Saúde, o implante trabecular proporcionou ganhos de 0,47 ano de vida ajustado pela qualidade e razão de custo-efetividade incremental de R$ 4.485,68/ano de vida ajustado pela qualidade em relação ao tratamento com medicação tópica. Os resultados foram robustos para análises de sensibilidade. Conclusão A incorporação do iStent inject® ao Sistema Único de Saúde proporciona melhora na qualidade de vida do paciente com um custo adicional que garante o benefício proporcionado a eles. Os resultados podem ser considerados custo-efetivos em comparação com a medicação tópica.

Epidemiological Analysis of 37,424 Carotid Artery Stenosis Intervention Procedures During 11 Years in the Public Health System in Brazil: Stenting has Been More Common Than Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of death worldwide, with carotid atherosclerosis accounting for 10-20% of cases. In Brazil, the Public Health System provides care for roughly two-thirds of the population. No studies, however, have analysed large-scale results of carotid bifurcation surgery in Brazil. METHODS: This study aimed to describe rates of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed between 2008 and 2019 in the country through web scraping of publicly available databases. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2019, 37,424 carotid bifurcation revascularization procedures were performed, of which 22,578 were CAS (60.34%) and 14,846 (39.66%) were CEA. There were 620 in-hospital deaths (1.66%), 336 after CAS (1.48%) and 284 after CEA (1.92%) (P = 0.032). Governmental reimbursement was US$ 77,216,298.85 (79.31% of all reimbursement) for CAS procedures and US$ 20,143,009.63 (20.69%) for CEA procedures. The average cost per procedure for CAS (US$ 3,062.98) was higher than that for CEA (US$ 1,430.33) (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In Brazil, the frequency of CAS largely surpassed that of CEA. In-hospital mortality rates of CAS were significantly lower than those of CEA, although both had mortality rates within the acceptable rates as dictated by literature. The cost of CAS, however, was significantly higher. This is a pioneering analysis of carotid artery disease management in Brazil that provides, for the first time, preliminary insight into the fact that the low adoption of CEA in the country is in opposition to countries where utilization rates are higher for CEA than for CAS.

Endovascular Repair of Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Results in Higher Hospital Expenses than Open Surgical Repair: Evidence from a Tertiary Hospital in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the preferred approach for the treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (IRAAA) in detriment of open surgical repair (OSR). EVAR results in lower mortality rates within 30 days, but rates tend to be the same after longer periods. Moreover, reduced use of hospital resources with EVAR does not necessarily offset the costs of the endoprosthesis. We aimed, in this study, to estimate hospital expenses after OSR or EVAR, including early and late readmissions. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of hospital expenses (2005-2012) with elective IRAAA surgeries performed in a tertiary hospital, including 127 patients divided into 2 groups, EVAR (n = 102) and OSR (n = 25). RESULTS: One perioperative death occurred in each group. EVAR interventions lasted 145 vs. 210 min of OSR (P < 0.001). Among OSR patients, 68% required packed red blood cells. Among EVAR patients, this proportion was 7.8% (P < 0.001). Median hospitalization time differed significantly for EVAR (4 days) and OSR (8 days; P < 0.001, intervals EVAR: 1-17 days, OSR: 2-442 days). The median and mean expenses with EVAR were US $53,080.95 and US $56,289.49, respectively. The median and mean expenses with OSR were US $37,116.04 and US $68,788.54, respectively. Early readmissions reached 11.2%. None of the OSR patients required late reinterventions, but 10 (9.9%) EVAR patients did, one of whom died. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR resulted in higher expenses with the exclusion of one outlier. Late reinterventions, with elevated costs, were only required by EVAR patients. Thus, when patients are eligible to undergo either intervention, OSR seems to have lower costs and better long-term results.

Contemporary Context of Drug-Eluting Stents in Brazil: A Cost Utility Study.

BACKGROUND: Although drug-eluting stents (DES) have been widely incorporated into clinical practice in developed countries, several countries restrict their use mainly because of their high cost and unfavorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DES in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) for treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). DESIGN: Markov model. DATA SOURCES: Published literature, government database, and CAD patient cohort. TARGET POPULATION: Single-vessel CAD patients. TIME HORIZON: One year and lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Brazilian Public Health System (SUS). INTERVENTION: Six strategies composed of percutaneous intervention with a BMS or 1 of 5 DES (paclitaxel, sirolimus, everolimus, zotarolimus, and zotarolimus resolute). OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost for target vessel revascularization avoided and cost for quality-adjusted life year gained. BASE CASE ANALYSIS: In the short-term analysis, sirolimus was the most effective and least costly among DES (ICER of I$20,642 per target vessel revascularization avoided), with all others DES dominated by sirolimus. Lifetime cumulative costs ranged from I$18,765 to I$21,400. In the base case analysis, zotarolimus resolute had the most favorable ICER among the DES (ICER I$62,761), with sirolimus, paclitaxel, and zotarolimus being absolute dominated and everolimus extended dominated by zotarolimus resolute, although all the results were above the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the gross domestic product per capita (I$35,307). SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: In deterministic sensitivity analysis, results were sensitive to cost of DES, number of stents used per patient, baseline probability, and duration of stent thrombosis risk. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a probability of 81% for BMS being the strategy of choice, with 9% for everolimus and 9% zotarolimus resolute, at the willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSION: DES is not a good value for money in SUS perspective, despite its benefit in reducing target vessel revascularization. Since the cost-effectiveness of DES is mainly driven by the stents' cost difference, they should cost less than twice the BMS price to become a cost-effective alternative.

Acute Coronary Syndrome Treatment Costs from the Perspective of the Supplementary Health System.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is defined as a "group of clinical symptoms compatible with acute myocardial ischemia", representing the leading cause of death worldwide, with a high clinical and financial impact. In this sense, the development of economic studies assessing the costs related to the treatment of ACS should be considered. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate costs and length of hospital stay between groups of patients treated for ACS undergoing angioplasty with or without stent implantation (stent+ / stent-), coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and treated only clinically (Clinical) from the perspective of the Brazilian Supplementary Health System (SHS). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of medical claims of beneficiaries of health plans was performed considering hospitalization costs and length of hospital stay for management of patients undergoing different types of treatment for ACS, between Jan/2010 and Jun/2012. RESULTS: The average costs per patient were R$ 18,261.77, R$ 30,611.07, R$ 37,454.94 and R$ 40,883.37 in the following groups: Clinical, stent-, stent+ and CABG, respectively. The average costs per day of hospitalization were R$ 1,987.03, R$ 4,024.72, R$ 6,033.40 and R$ 2,663.82, respectively. The average results for length of stay were 9.19 days, 7.61 days, 6.19 days and 15.20 days in these same groups. The differences were significant between all groups except Clinical and stent- and between stent + and CABG groups for cost analysis. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization costs of SCA are high in the Brazilian SHS, being significantly higher when interventional procedures are required.

Economic Evaluation of the Use of Drug-Eluting Stents versus Bare-Metal Stents in Adults with Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Requiring Angioplasty.

BACKGROUND: The value of drug-eluting stents in preventing cardiovascular events has not been investigated in Mexico. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of early and new-generation drug-eluting stents from the perspective of a healthcare provider. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of early and new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy attending a Cardiology Hospital of the Mexican Social Security Institute. The health endpoint used was major acute cardiovascular events prevented. The effectiveness by stent type was obtained from the literature. A retrospective chart review study was conducted to collect cost data on cardiovascular events including seven cost categories. Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of estimates. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in base-case were 28,910 and US$ 35,590 for early and new-generation stents, respectively. In an optimal scenario, incremental-cost effectiveness ratio was 24,776 and US$ 25,262 for early and new stents, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that 90% of cases were cost-effective when willingness-to-pay was 58,000 and US$ 66,000 for early and new-generation stents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness ratios of early and new-generation stents were significantly higher than corresponding bare-metal stents.

Acute Coronary Syndrome Treatment Costs from the Perspective of the Supplementary Health System / Custos de Tratamento da Síndrome Coronariana Aguda sob a Perspectiva do Sistema de Saúde Suplementar

AbstractBackground:Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is defined as a “group of clinical symptoms compatible with acute myocardial ischemia”, representing the leading cause of death worldwide, with a high clinical and financial impact. In this sense, the development of economic studies assessing the costs related to the treatment of ACS should be considered.Objective:To evaluate costs and length of hospital stay between groups of patients treated for ACS undergoing angioplasty with or without stent implantation (stent+ / stent-), coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and treated only clinically (Clinical) from the perspective of the Brazilian Supplementary Health System (SHS).Methods:A retrospective analysis of medical claims of beneficiaries of health plans was performed considering hospitalization costs and length of hospital stay for management of patients undergoing different types of treatment for ACS, between Jan/2010 and Jun/2012.Results:The average costs per patient were R$ 18,261.77, R$ 30,611.07, R$ 37,454.94 and R$ 40,883.37 in the following groups: Clinical, stent-, stent+ and CABG, respectively. The average costs per day of hospitalization were R$ 1,987.03, R$ 4,024.72, R$ 6,033.40 and R$ 2,663.82, respectively. The average results for length of stay were 9.19 days, 7.61 days, 6.19 days and 15.20 days in these same groups. The differences were significant between all groups except Clinical and stent- and between stent + and CABG groups for cost analysis.Conclusion:Hospitalization costs of SCA are high in the Brazilian SHS, being significantly higher when interventional procedures are required.

Fundamento:Síndrome coronariana aguda (SCA) é definida como um “grupo de sintomas clínicos compatíveis com isquemia miocárdica aguda”, representando a principal causa de óbito no mundo, com elevado impacto clínico e financeiro. Nesse sentido, o desenvolvimento de estudos econômicos que avaliem os custos despendidos no tratamento da SCA deve ser considerado.Objetivo:Avaliar custos e tempo de internação hospitalar entre grupos de pacientes que trataram SCA, submetidos a procedimentos de angioplastia com ou sem implante de stent (stent+ / stent-), revascularização (Revasc) e tratados apenas clinicamente (Clínico), sob a perspectiva do sistema de saúde suplementar (SSS) brasileiro.Métodos:Realizou-se uma análise retrospectiva de contas médicas de beneficiários de planos de saúde considerando dados de custos de internação e tempo de permanência hospitalar para o manejo de pacientes submetidos a diferentes tipos de tratamento para SCA, no período entre 1/2010 e 6/2012.Resultados:Os custos médios por paciente foram de R$ 18.261,77, R$ 30.611,07, R$ 37.454,94 e R$ 40.883,37 nos grupos Clínico, stent-, stent+ e Revasc, respectivamente. Os custos médios por dia de internação foram de R$ 1.987,03, R$ 4.024,72, R$ 6.033,40 e R$ 2.663,82, respectivamente. Os tempos médios de internação foram de 9,19 dias, 7,61 dias, 6,19 dias e 15,20 dias nesses mesmos grupos. As diferenças foram estatisticamente significativas entre todos os grupos, exceto Clínico e stent- e entre os grupos stent + e Revasc, para a análise de custos.Conclusão:O custo hospitalar da SCA é elevado no SSS brasileiro e significativamente mais alto quando há a necessidade da realização de procedimentos intervencionistas.

A single-institution experience with metallic ureteral stents: a cost-effective method of managing deficiencies in ureteral drainage.

INTRODUCTION: The limitations of traditional ureteral stents in patients with deficiencies in ureteral drainage have resulted in frequent stent exchanges. The implementation of metallic stents was introduced to improve the patency rates of patients with chronic upper urinary tract obstruction, obviating the need for frequent stent exchanges. We report our clinical experiences with the use of metallic ureteral stents in the management of poor ureteral drainage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients underwent metallic ureteral stent placement from 2009 to 2012. Stent failure was defined as an unplanned stent exchange, need for nephrostomy tube placement, increasing hydronephrosis with stent in place, or an elevation in serum creatinine. Stent life was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier methodology, as this was a time dependent continuous variable. A cost analysis was similarly conducted. RESULTS: A total of 97 metallic stents were placed among our cohort of patients: 63 in cases of malignant obstruction, 33 in the setting of cutaneous ureterostomies, and 1 in an ileal conduit urinary diversion. Overall, stent failure occurred in 8.2% of the stents placed. Median stent life was 288.4 days (95% CI: 277.4-321.2 days). The estimated annual cost for traditional polymer stents (exchanged every 90 days) was $9,648-$13,128, while the estimated cost for metallic stents was $4,211-$5,313. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that metallic ureteral stent placement is a technically feasible procedure with minimal complications and is well tolerated among patients. Metallic stents can be left in situ for longer durations and provide a significant financial benefit when compared to traditional polymer stents.

A Single-Institution Experience with Metallic Ureteral Stents: A Cost-Effective Method of Managing Deficiencies in Ureteral Drainage

IntroductionThe limitations of traditional ureteral stents in patients with deficiencies in ureteral drainage have resulted in frequent stent exchanges. The implementation of metallic stents was introduced to improve the patency rates of patients with chronic upper urinary tract obstruction, obviating the need for frequent stent exchanges. We report our clinical experiences with the use of metallic ureteral stents in the management of poor ureteral drainage.Materials and MethodsFifty patients underwent metallic ureteral stent placement from 2009 to 2012. Stent failure was defined as an unplanned stent exchange, need for nephrostomy tube placement, increasing hydronephrosis with stent in place, or an elevation in serum creatinine. Stent life was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier methodology, as this was a time dependent continuous variable. A cost analysis was similarly conducted.ResultsA total of 97 metallic stents were placed among our cohort of patients: 63 in cases of malignant obstruction, 33 in the setting of cutaneous ureterostomies, and 1 in an ileal conduit urinary diversion. Overall, stent failure occurred in 8.2% of the stents placed. Median stent life was 288.4 days (95% CI: 277.4-321.2 days). The estimated annual cost for traditional polymer stents (exchanged every 90 days) was $9,648-$13,128, while the estimated cost for metallic stents was $4,211-$5,313.ConclusionOur results indicate that metallic ureteral stent placement is a technically feasible procedure with minimal complications and is well tolerated among patients. Metallic stents can be left in situ for longer durations and provide a significant financial benefit when compared to traditional polymer stents.

Comparison of cost-effectiveness of oral rapamycin plus bare-metal stents versus first generation of drug-eluting stents (from the Randomized Oral Rapamycin in Argentina [ORAR] 3 trial).

The aim of this study was to compare 5-year cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes of patients with oral rapamycin (OR) plus bare-metal stent versus the drug-eluting stent (DES) strategy. During 2006 to 2007, a total of 200 patients were randomized to OR (n = 100) and DES (n = 100). Primary end point was to compare costs of initial procedure and cost-effectiveness of both revascularization strategies. Safety was evaluated by the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident. Efficacy was assessed by target vessel and target lesion revascularizations. The 2 groups had similar baseline demographic, clinical, and angiographic characteristics. In the DES group, paclitaxel-, zotarolimus-, and sirolimus-eluting stents were used. Five-year clinical follow-up was accomplished in 99% patients. The DES group had significantly higher procedural (p <0.001), discharge to first-year (p = 0.02), and 1- to 5-year costs (p <0.001) compared with the OR group. At 5 years, the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident (12% in the OR group vs 25% in the DES group, p = 0.01) was significantly less in the OR group. Target vessel revascularization (14.5% in the OR group vs 21% in the DES group, p = 0.16) and target lesion revascularization (10% in the OR group vs 17.6% in the DES group, p = 0.05) were not significantly different. In conclusion, a strategy of OR plus bare-metal stent was cost saving than a first-generation DES.

Randomized comparison of cost-saving and effectiveness of oral rapamycin plus bare-metal stents with drug-eluting stents: three-year outcome from the randomized oral rapamycin in Argentina (ORAR) III trial.

OBJECTIVES: The Oral Rapamycin in ARgentina (ORAR) III trial is a randomized study comparing a strategy of oral rapamycin (OR) plus bare-metal stent (BMS) versus a strategy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with de novo coronary lesions. The purpose of this study was to assess the 3 years cost-effectiveness outcome of each strategy. BACKGROUND: OR after BMS has been associated with reduction of target vessel revascularization (TVR) although its value in long-term efficacy in comparison with DES is unknown. METHODS: In three hospitals in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 200 patients were randomized to OR plus BMS (n = 100) or DES (n = 100). Primary objectives were costs and effectiveness. Cost analysis included in-hospital and follow-up costs. Safety was defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. Efficacy was defined as TVR. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics between groups were similar. The 3-year follow-up rate was 99%. Cardiac mortality was 2% and 5% in OR group and DES group, respectively (P = 0.44). The composite of death, MI and stroke rate was 11% in OR group and 20% in DES group (P = 0.078). TVR rate was 14.5% in OR group and 17.6% in DES group (P = 0.50), respectively. Three year cumulative costs were significantly lower in the OR arm as compared to the DES arm (P = 0.0001) and DES strategy did not result cost-effective according to the non-inferiority test. CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years follow-up, there were no differences in effectiveness between the two strategies, and DES strategy was not more cost-effective as compared to OR plus BMS.

[Analysis of Brazilian Public Health System values for complete percutaneous myocardial revascularization in multi-arterial patients]. / Análise dos valores SUS para a revascularização miocárdica percutânea completa em multiarteriais.

BACKGROUND: The Brazilian Public Health System (SUS, acronym in Portuguese) establishes that coronary angioplasty with the double implant stent must not exceed 20% of the angioplasties, resulting in the need of assigning most of the procedures in patients with multiarterial disease. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to assess the paid values by the SUS in order to obtain the complete percutaneous myocardial revascularization in the SUS patients with the multiarterial disease, related to the number of necessary procedures and of implanted stents. METHODS: A total of 141 patients with multiarterial coronary disease, submitted to a successful complete revascularization, were included by the stent implant with coronariography in a 6-month period of post-implant. The complete revascularization was defined as the percutaneous treatment of all stenosis > 70% in vessels with diameter > 2 mm. For the costs analysis, the values from the Sistema de Informações Hospitalares (SIH) of the SUS table were considered as R$ 2,263.77, for the procedure; and R$ 2,034.23, per implanted stent. RESULTS: In the period from 7/2006 to 12/2007, 416 stents were implanted in 141 patients. The mean age was of 59.7 +/- 9.9 years old, prevailing the male sex (68.1%). The number of vessels was 356 and the lesions number corresponded to 416. In order to obtain the complete revascularization by the coronary stent implant, it was necessary to stagger in up to four procedures. The mean time between the 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd and 3rd and 4th angioplasties was of 45.8 +/- 37.7; 55.4 +/- 55.3 and 33.5 +/- 19.1 days, respectively. CONCLUSION: The complete percutaneous revascularization in patients from the SUS with the multiarterial coronary disease, carried out in most of them staggered, causes considerable elevation of public expenses due to the increase of procedures' number.

Análise dos valores SUS para a revascularização miocárdica percutânea completa em multiarteriais / Analysis of Brazilian Public Health System values for complete percutaneous myocardial revascularization in multi-arterial patients

FUNDAMENTO: O Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) estabelece que a angioplastia coronariana com o implante de duplo stent não deve exceder 20 por cento das angioplastias, resultando na necessidade de escalonar a maioria dos procedimentos nos pacientes com doença multiarterial. OBJETIVO: O objetivo do presente estudo foi avaliar os valores remunerados pelo SUS para a obtenção da revascularização miocárdica percutânea completa em pacientes do SUS com doença multiarterial relacionados ao número de procedimentos necessários e de stents implantados. MÉTODOS: Foram incluídos 141 pacientes com doença coronariana multiarterial, submetidos à revascularização completa com sucesso pelo implante de stent, com coronariografia aos 6 meses pós-implante. A revascularização completa foi definida como o tratamento percutâneo de todas as lesões com percentual de estenose > 70 por cento, em vasos com diâmetro > 2 mm. Para análise dos custos, foram considerados os valores da Tabela SIH/SUS de R$ 2.263,77 para o procedimento e R$ 2.034,23 por stent implantado. RESULTADOS: No período de 07/2006 a 12/2007 foram implantados 416 stents em 141 pacientes. A idade média foi de 59,7 ± 9,9 anos, com predomínio do sexo masculino (68,1 por cento). O número de vasos foi 356 e o número de lesões 416. Para a obtenção da revascularização completa pelo implante de stent coronáriano foi necessário o escalonamento em até 4 procedimentos. O tempo médio entre a 1ª e 2ª, 2ª e 3ª e 3ª e 4ª angioplastias foi de 45,8 ± 37,7, 55,4 ± 55,3 e 33,5 ± 19,1 dias, respectivamente. CONCLUSÃO: A revascularização percutânea completa em pacientes do SUS com doença coronariana multiarterial, realizada em sua grande maioria de forma escalonada, ocasiona considerável elevação de gastos públicos devido ao aumento do número de procedimentos.

BACKGROUND: The Brazilian Public Health System (SUS, acronym in Portuguese) establishes that coronary angioplasty with the double implant stent must not exceed 20 percent of the angioplasties, resulting in the need of assigning most of the procedures in patients with multiarterial disease. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to assess the paid values by the SUS in order to obtain the complete percutaneous myocardial revascularization in the SUS patients with the multiarterial disease, related to the number of necessary procedures and of implanted stents. METHODS: A total of 141 patients with multiarterial coronary disease, submitted to a successful complete revascularization, were included by the stent implant with coronariography in a 6-month period of post-implant. The complete revascularization was defined as the percutaneous treatment of all stenosis > 70 percent in vessels with diameter > 2 mm. For the costs analysis, the values from the Sistema de Informações Hospitalares (SIH) of the SUS table were considered as R$ 2,263.77, for the procedure; and R$ 2,034.23, per implanted stent. RESULTS: In the period from 7/2006 to 12/2007, 416 stents were implanted in 141 patients. The mean age was of 59.7 ± 9.9 years old, prevailing the male sex (68.1 percent). The number of vessels was 356 and the lesions number corresponded to 416. In order to obtain the complete revascularization by the coronary stent implant, it was necessary to stagger in up to four procedures. The mean time between the 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd and 3rd and 4th angioplasties was of 45.8 ± 37.7; 55.4 ± 55.3 and 33.5 ± 19.1 days, respectively. CONCLUSION: The complete percutaneous revascularization in patients from the SUS with the multiarterial coronary disease, carried out in most of them staggered, causes considerable elevation of public expenses due to the increase of procedures' number.

Avaliação do custo efetividade dos stents farmacológicos em comparação aos stents convencionais: resultados clínicos e de custos a médio e longo prazo / Assessing the cost effectiveness of drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents: clinical results and costs in the medium and long term

Fundamentos: Os resultados tardios com os stents farmacológicos são melhores do que com stents convencionais, principalmente no que se refere à reestenose. Entretanto, no "mundo real", os stents farmacológicos são implantados em pacientes de maior complexidade, o que teoricamente já diminui a diferença dos resultados. Objetivos: Comparar resultados da utilização de stents com paclitaxel (Grupo I) em pacientes complexos com stents convencionais (Grupo II) implantados em pacientes menos graves. A partir dos resultados realizar análise para estimar a razão de custo-efetividade nos dois grupos. Métodos: Foram analisados 220 pacientes prospectivamente durante aproximadamente dois anos (média de 17 meses): 111 do Grupo 1 (GI) e 109 do Grupo II (GII). Foram avaliadas a sobrevida e a sobrevida livre de eventos através do método de Kaplan-Meier. Usando-se os critérios da Organização Mundial de Saúde, calculou-se a razão custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI) para cada reestenose evitada. O escore de propensão foi usado para reduzir diferenças entre os dois grupos. Resultados: Foi observado predomínio do sexo masculino nos dois grupos (n=174 66,8%), mas sem diferenças entre eles. Também não houve diferenças em relação à idade, que variou de 42 anos a 91 anos (65,9 anos). As diferenças que ocorreram, com maior incidência no GI foram: diabetes: GI=60 (50,4%) e GII=19 (17,4%), p=0,0001; história familiar para doença arterial coronariana (DAC): GI=43 (38,7%) e GII=24 (22,1%), p=0,007; infarto prévio: GI=54 (48,6%) e GII=31 (28,4%), p=0,002; cirurgia de revascularização prévia: GI=24 (21,7%) e GII=6 (5,5%), p=0,0005; angioplastia prévia: GI=28 (25,2%) e GII=17 (15,5%), p=0,077; síndromes coronarianas agudas: GI=48 (43,3%) e GII=35 (32,0%), p=0,088. Os pacientes triarteriais foram mais presentes no GI=21 (18,9%) do que no GII=11 (10,1%), p=0,029. No entanto, os pacientes do GII apresentaram mais frequentemente função normal do VE: GI=51 (45,9%) e GII=85 (77,9%), p=0,0001...

Background: Long term outcomes for drug eluting stents are better than those for bare metal stents, especially for restenosis. However, drug eluting stents are usually implanted in more complex patients, theoretically lessening the difference in the outcomes. Objetives: To compare the outcomes of paclitaxel stents (GI) in complex patients and bare metal stents (GII), in less complex patients. Methods: For some two years (mean: 17 months), 220 patients were analyzed prospectively: 111 in GI and 109 in GII. Their general survival and cardiovascular event-free survival rates were assessed through the Kaplan-Meier method. Using the criteria of the World Health Organization (WHO), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for each restenosis avoided. Propensity scores was used to reduce selection bias by equating both groups based on these covariates. Results: Men predominated in both groups (n=174 66.8%), with no differences between them, including age, ranging from 42 to 91 years (65.9 years). The main differences, with higher rates in GI, were diabetes: GI=60 (50.4%) and GII=19 (17.4%), p=0.0001; family history: GI=43 (38.7%) and GII=24 (22.1%), p=0.007; previous acute myocardial infarction: GI=54 (48.6%) and GII=31 (28.4%), p=0.002; previous coronary artery bypass graft: GI=24 (21.7%) and GII=6 (5.5%), p=0.0005; previous angioplasty: GI=28 (25.2%) and GII=17 (15.5%), p=0.077; acute coronary syndrome: GI=48 (43.3%) and GII=35 (32.0%), p=0.088. Multivessel patients were more frequent in GI=21 (18.9%) than in GII=11 (10.1%), p=0.029. However, the GII patients presented normal left ventricle functions more frequently: GI=51 (45.9%) and GII=85 (77.9%), p=0.0001. There were no differences between the groups for the number of lesions treated and number of arteries per patient. The bare metal stent group presented simpler lesions: Type A GI=43 (25.6%); GII=65 (45.5%), p=0.0002; Type B: B1 GI=50 (29.7%) and GII=35 (24.5%), p=0.30...

Cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary interventions in Brazil.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness ratios of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) under two perspectives: the "supplementary medical system" (health plans and private patients) and the public health (SUS) system. METHODS: A decision-analytic model using three different therapeutic strategies for coronary lesions: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BMS; with SES; or with BMS followed by SES to treat symptomatic restenosis. Study endpoints were one-year event-free survival and life expectancy. Decision trees were constructed using the results of published registries and clinical trials. RESULTS: One-year restenosis-free survival was 92.7% with SES and 78.8% with BMS. Estimated life expectancy was very similar for all the strategies, ranging from 18.5 to 19 years. Under a nonpublic perspective, the cost difference in the first year between BMS and SES was R$3,816, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$27,403 per event avoided in one year. Under the SUS perspective, the cost per event avoided in one year was R$47,529. In the sensitivity analysis, probability of restenosis, risk reduction expected with SES, the price of the stent and cost of treating restenosis were all important predictors. In the Monte Carlo simulation, data per years of life saved showed very high cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSION: In the Brazilian model, the cost-effectiveness ratios for SES were elevated. The use of SES was more favorable for patients with high risk of restenosis, as it is associated with elevated costs in restenosis management of and under a nonpublic perspective.

Custo-efetividade dos stents recobertos por rapamicina em procedimentos percutâneos coronarianos no Brasil / Cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary interventions in Brazil

OBJETIVOS: Comparar as relações de custo-efetividade do stent recoberto (SR) por rapamicina com o stent convencional (SC), sob duas perspectivas: medicina suplementar e sistema público (SUS). MÉTODOS: Modelo de decisão analítico com três estratégias de tratamento de lesão coronariana: intervenção coronária percutânea (icP) com SC; com SR com rapamicina e SC seguido de SR para manejo de reestenose sintomática. Os desfechos foram: sobrevida livre de eventos em um ano e expectativa de vida. As árvores de decisão foram construídas com resultados de registros e ensaios clínicos publicados. RESULTADOS: A sobrevida em um ano livre de reestenose foi de 92,7 por cento com SR e de 78,8 por cento com SC. A expectativa de vida estimada das estratégias foi muito semelhante, entre 18,5 e 19 anos. Sob a perspectiva não-pública, a diferença de custo no primeiro ano entre SC e SR foi de R$ 3.816, com relação de custo-efetividade incremental de R$ 27.403 por evento evitado em um ano. Sob a perspectiva do SUS, o custo por evento evitado em um ano foi de R$ 47.529. Na análise de sensibilidade, foram preditores relevantes a probabilidade de reestenose, a redução de risco esperada com SR, o custo do stent e o custo do manejo da reestenose. Os dados por anos de vida demonstraram relações de custo-efetividade bastante elevadas na simulação de Monte Carlo. CONCLUSÃO: As relações de custo-efetividade do SR por rapamicina foram elevadas em modelo brasileiro. O uso de SR foi mais favorável em pacientes de alto risco de reestenose, com elevado custo do manejo de reestenose e sob a perspectiva não-pública.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness ratios of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) under two perspectives: the "supplementary medical system" (health plans and private patients) and the public health (SUS) system. METHODS: A decision-analytic model using three different therapeutic strategies for coronary lesions: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BMS; with SES; or with BMS followed by SES to treat symptomatic restenosis. Study endpoints were one-year event-free survival and life expectancy. Decision trees were constructed using the results of published registries and clinical trials. RESULTS: One-year restenosis-free survival was 92.7 percent with SES and 78.8 percent with BMS. Estimated life expectancy was very similar for all the strategies, ranging from 18.5 to 19 years. Under a nonpublic perspective, the cost difference in the first year between BMS and SES was R$3,816, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$27,403 per event avoided in one year. Under the SUS perspective, the cost per event avoided in one year was R$47,529. In the sensitivity analysis, probability of restenosis, risk reduction expected with SES, the price of the stent and cost of treating restenosis were all important predictors. In the Monte Carlo simulation, data per years of life saved showed very high cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSION: In the Brazilian model, the cost-effectiveness ratios for SES were elevated. The use of SES was more favorable for patients with high risk of restenosis, as it is associated with elevated costs in restenosis management of and under a nonpublic perspective.

Expert consensus (SBC/SBHCI) on the use of drug-eluting stents: recommendations of the Brazilian society of interventional cardiology/ Brazilian society of cardiology for the Brazilian public single healthcare system.

The authors review percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) evolution and its growing application in myocardial revascularization for patients with coronary heart disease in Brazil and worldwide. PCI was introduced in 1977 using only the catheter balloon. Limitations of this method (acute occlusion and coronary restenosis) led to the adoption of coronary stents and more recently the advent of drug-eluting stents2, which were developed to drastically reduce restenosis rates. These developments allowed the exponential growth of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in Brazil which have replaced many bypass surgery procedures and have become the gold standard for the majority of symptomatic patients suffering from coronary artery disease. The preference for this procedure gained new dimensions in 2000 when the Brazilian Public Healthcare System (SUS) began reimbursing for stent procedures. This measure exemplified the importance of the Public Healthcare System's participation in incorporating medical advances and offering a high standard of cardiovascular treatment to a large portion of the Brazilian population. It is emphasized that prevention of in-stent restenosis is complex due to its unpredictable and ubiquitous occurrence. Control of this condition improves quality of life and reduces the recurrence of angina pectoris, the need to perform new revascularization procedures and hospital readmissions. The overall success of the drug-eluting stents has proven to be reliable and consistent in overcoming restenosis and has some beneficial impact for all clinical and angiographic conditions. This paper discusses the adoption and criteria for the use of drug-eluting stents in other countries as well as the recommendations established by the Brazilian Society of Interventional Cardiology for their reimbursement by SUS. The incorporation of new healthcare technology involves two distinct stages. During the first stage, the product is registered with the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA). During this stage the interested company submits to the regulatory agency, results from clinical studies that demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the new device or pharmaceutical product. Frequently, in addition to clinical studies, approval records for clinical use from the regulatory agencies of other countries, mainly the United States of America and the European Community are also submitted. The successful completion of this stage means that the medication or device may be prescribed or used by the physicians in Brazil. The second stage in the incorporation of new healthcare technology involves the reimbursement or financing of the treatment that was approved in the previous stage based on its efficacy and safety. This stage can be more complex than the first one since the new technology, whether a substitution for established treatment methods or the introduction of a new treatment concept, are usually more expensive. The incorporation of new technology requires a cost-effectiveness analysis so that fund administrators can make decisions based on the universal scenario of limited resources to finance healthcare with treatments that are more and more burdensome. The difficulties of funding management are aggravated by medical and social ethical implications that arise when a treatment is approved based on its efficacy and safety but is not made available to patients who could benefit greatly from it. In Brazil, assessment methods for the incorporation of new technology based on reimbursement or financing have not been fully developed for either the private healthcare plans or the Brazilian Public Healthcare System (SUS). The implementation of new technology in both healthcare systems is a slow process and frequently the implementation is a result of the requirements of patients or the organizations that represent them and at times is the result of legal proceedings or political pressure imposed by physicians and their respective scientific societies. Our objective is to review the evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Brazil and its current status in view of the advent of drug-eluting stents, the growing participation of drug-eluting stents in myocardial revascularization to treat patients with coronary heart disease, as well as, to compare the regulatory standards from Brazil and other countries regarding the incorporation and recommendations for the use of this new technology.

Consenso de especialistas (SBC/SBHCI) sobre o uso de stents farmacológicos: recomendações da sociedade brasileira de cardiologia/sociedade brasileira de hemodinâmica e cardiologia intervencionista ao sistema único de saúde / Expert consensus (SBC/SBHCI) on the use of drug-eluting stents: recommendations of the Brazilian society of interventional cardiology/ Brazilian society of cardiology for the Brazilian public single healthcare system / Expert consensus (SBC/SBHCI) on the use of drug-eluting stents: recommendations of the Brazilian society of interventional cardiology/ Brazilian society of cardiology for the Brazilian public single healthcare system

Os autores revisam a evolução da intervenção coronariana percutânea, a sua crescente aplicação na revascularização miocárdica de pacientes portadores de doença arterial coronariana, seja no Brasil, seja no âmbito mundial. Desde a introdução do método, em 1977, com a utilização isolada do cateter-balão, a constatação de que o mesmo tinha limitações (oclusão aguda e reestenose), a adoção dos stents coronarianos e, mais recentemente, o advento dos stents farmacológicos, idealizados para reduzir ainda mais as taxas de reestenose, possibilitaram o crescimento exponencial da aplicação da intervenção coronariana percutânea (ICP) no Brasil, superando a cirurgia de revascularização e tornando-se o tratamento majoritário para enfermos sintomáticos, acometidos de aterosclerose obstrutiva coronariana. Esta preferência se salienta, a partir do ano 2000, após o início do reembolso dos stents pelo Sistema de Unico de Saúde Brasileiro. Este fato demonstra a importância do Sistema Público de Saúde, quando este incorpora os avanços médicos, e passa a oferecer bons padrões de tratamento cardiovascular a grande número de brasileiros. Destaca-se a complexidade da profilaxia da reestenose intra-stent, por sua ocorrência imprevisível e ubíqua. O controle deste fenômeno melhora a qualidade de vida, reduzindo o retorno da angina do peito, a realização de novos procedimentos de revascularização e a re-internação hospitalar. Os stents farmacológicos lograram êxito sólido e consistente na conquista deste objetivo de forma abrangente, beneficiando todas as apresentações clínicas e angiográficas, em maior ou menor grau. Sua adoção e critérios para sua utilização em outros países são discutidos, assim como a formalização das indicações preconizadas pela Sociedade Brasileira de Hemodinâmica e Cardiologia Intervencionista, para o seu reembolso pelo SUS. A incorporação de novas tecnologias em saúde é um processo que compreende duas etapas distintas: na primeira, o registro do produto é efetivado na Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)...

The authors review percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) evolution and its growing application in myocardial revascularization for patients with coronary heart disease in Brazil and worldwide. PCI was introduced in 1977 using only the catheter balloon. Limitations of this method (acute occlusion and coronary restenosis) led to the adoption of coronary stents and more recently the advent of drug-eluting stents², which were developed to drastically reduce restenosis rates. These developments allowed the exponential growth of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in Brazil which have replaced many bypass surgery procedures and have become the gold standard for the majority of symptomatic patients suffering from coronary artery disease. The preference for this procedure gained new dimensions in 2000 when the Brazilian Public Healthcare System (SUS) began reimbursing for stent procedures. This measure exemplified the importance of the Public Healthcare System's participation in incorporating medical advances and offering a high standard of cardiovascular treatment to a large portion of the Brazilian population. It is emphasized that prevention of in-stent restenosis is complex due to its unpredictable and ubiquitous occurrence. Control of this condition improves quality of life and reduces the recurrence of angina pectoris, the need to perform new revascularization procedures and hospital readmissions. The overall success of the drug-eluting stents has proven to be reliable and consistent in overcoming restenosis and has some beneficial impact for all clinical and angiographic conditions. This paper discusses the adoption and criteria for the use of drug-eluting stents in other countries as well as the recommendations established by the Brazilian Society of Interventional Cardiology for their reimbursement by SUS. The incorporation of new healthcare technology involves two distinct stages. During the first stage, the product is registered with the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA)...