Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 28, 2025
Novel Percutaneous Approach for Deployment of 3D Printed Coronary Stenosis Implants in Swine Models of Ischemic Heart Disease
Published on: February 18, 2020
Cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary interventions in Brazil
Carisi Anne Polanczyk1, Marco V Wainstein, Jorge Pinto Ribeiro
1Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Programa de Pós-graduação em Cardiologia da UFRGS, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. carisi@terra.com.br
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.
