Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 28, 2026

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
Published on: August 9, 2024
Treatment for stable coronary artery disease: a network meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies
Thibaut Caruba1, Sandrine Katsahian2, Catherine Schramm3
1Pharmacie, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, APHP, Paris, France.
Insights
Medical therapy (MT) is the most cost-effective treatment for stable angina, with similar efficacy to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). MT offers significant health expenditure savings.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Health Economics
Background:
- Stable angina management involves various treatment modalities.
- Direct cost-effectiveness comparisons between these treatments are limited.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of medical therapy (MT), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with or without stents (PTCA, BMS, DES), and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) for stable angina.
- To analyze data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Main Methods:
- Systematic search of RCTs comparing at least two treatment modalities.
- Clinical endpoints: mortality and myocardial infarction (MI).
- Standardized cost analysis using network meta-analysis.
Main Results:
- Mortality and MI rates were similar across all five treatment groups at 1 and 3 years.
- Significant cost differences were observed: MT was least expensive (US $3069/1yr, $13,864/3yr), while CABG was most expensive (US $27,003/1yr, $28,670/3yr).
- PCI modalities (PTCA, BMS, DES) had costs between MT and CABG, closer to CABG.
Conclusions:
- Medical therapy (MT) is the most economical treatment for stable angina patients.
- Significant health expenditure savings are achievable by prioritizing MT.
Introduction And Objectives:
Numerous studies have assessed cost-effectiveness of different treatment modalities for stable angina. Direct comparisons, however, are uncommon. We therefore set out to compare the efficacy and mean cost per patient after 1 and 3 years of follow-up, of the following treatments as assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCT): medical therapy (MT), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without stent (PTCA), with bare-metal stent (BMS), with drug-eluting stent (DES), and elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).
Methods:
RCT comparing at least two of the five treatments and reporting clinical and cost data were identified by a systematic search. Clinical end-points were mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). The costs described in the different trials were standardized and expressed in US $ 2008, based on purchasing power parity. A network meta-analysis was used to compare costs.
Results:
Fifteen RCT were selected. Mortality and MI rates were similar in the five treatment groups both for 1-year and 3-year follow-up. Weighted cost per patient however differed markedly for the five treatment modalities, at both one year and three years (P<0.0001). MT was the least expensive treatment modality: US $3069 and 13 864 after one and three years of follow-up, while CABG was the most costly: US $27 003 and 28 670 after one and three years. PCI, whether with plain balloon, BMS or DES came in between, but was closer to the costs of CABG.
Conclusions:
Appreciable savings in health expenditures can be achieved by using MT in the management of patients with stable angina.
More Related Videos
10:28Interventional Diagnostic Procedure: A Practical Guide for the Assessment of Coronary Vascular Function
Published on: March 15, 2022
18:11A Research Method For Detecting Transient Myocardial Ischemia In Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome Using Continuous ST-segment Analysis
Published on: December 28, 2012
Related Concept Videos
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Coronary Artery Disease IV: Preventive Measures
Atherosclerosis III: Management
Angina IV: Management
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care