ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2004
What reimbursement for coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents?
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using meta-regression analyses in addition to conventional systematic review methods to examine the variation in cost-effectiveness results - a case study.BMC health services research · 2016Pooled it
- The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: a systematic review.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2007Pooled it
- Cost effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in Belgian practice: healthcare payer perspective.PharmacoEconomics · 2009Article
- The "Essential Levels of Care" in Italy: when being explicit serves the devolution of powers.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2005Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the clinical and economic impact of sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (SES) at a nationwide level as to advice about the feasible reimbursement policy for the Italian Health Care System (SSN). A decision model compared bare metal stents (BMS) and SES in terms of costs and repeat coronary revascularizations incurred in 12 months following the first revascularization. The model was compiled for eight subgroups of patients. Rates of events were derived from randomized trials and an 1,809-patient survey. National charges were used to evaluate resources consumption. Compared with BMS, the number of averted revascularizations with SES is 0.16 per patient. SES also save Euro 1,371 per patient. Total savings to SSN are proportional to the rate of SES adoption by Italian hospitals: assuming a complete replacement of BMS with SES, the model estimates that 7,095 revascularizations would be averted and more than Euro 60 million saved by the SSN in 1 year. To stimulate SES adoption a SES-specific DRG might by introduced with a reimbursement value 23% higher than the current charge. SES is thus a cost-saving strategy in the perspective of the SSN that could therefore support the introduction of the new technology by reimbursing about 80% of its current incremental acquisition cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.