Cargando…
Cost-effectiveness analysis of coronary arteries bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) through drug stent in iran: a comparative study
BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analysis plays a key role in evaluating health systems and services. Coronary artery disease is one of the primary health concerns worldwide. This study sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of Coronary Arteries Bypass Grafting (CABG) and Percutaneous Coronary Inter...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9930214/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36793078 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-023-00426-y |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analysis plays a key role in evaluating health systems and services. Coronary artery disease is one of the primary health concerns worldwide. This study sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of Coronary Arteries Bypass Grafting (CABG) and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) through drug stent using Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) index. METHODS: This is a cohort study involving all patients undergoing CABG and PCI through drug stent in south of Iran. A total of 410 patients were randomly selected to be included in the study. Data were gathered using SF-36, SAQ and a form for cost data from the patients' perspective. The data were analyzed descriptively and inferentially. Considering the analysis of cost-effectiveness, Markov Model was initially developed using TreeAge Pro 2020. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with the group treated with PCI, the total cost of interventions was higher in the CABG group ($102,103.8 vs $71,401.22) and the cost of lost productivity ($20,228.68 vs $7632.11), while the cost of hospitalization was lower in CABG ($67,567.1 vs $49,660.97). The cost of hotel stay and travel ($6967.82 vs $2520.12) and the cost of medication ($7340.18 vs $11,588.01) was lower in CABG. From the patients' perspective and SAQ instrument, CABG was cost-saving, with a reduction of $16,581 for every increase in effectiveness. Based on patients’ perspective and SF-36 instrument, CABG was cost-saving, with a reduction of $34,543 for every increase in effectiveness. CONCLUSION: In the same indications, CABG intervention leads to more resource savings. |
---|