ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
Cost-effectiveness of optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with complex coronary artery lesions in China: a markov model-based study.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT)-guided versus coronary angiography-guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) within the Chinese healthcare system, exploring its economic value for patients with complex coronary artery lesions.
methodsA Markov model simulated a cohort of 10,000 patients aged 65 with coronary heart disease over a lifetime horizon (20 years). Adopting a healthcare system perspective, the study compared OCT-guided versus angiography-guided PCI strategies. Model parameters integrated 2-year follow-up data from the OCCUPI trial, clinical parameters from a meta-analysis of 6 RCTs, the Chinese National Reimbursement Drug List (2025), and health utility values for the Chinese population. A 5% discount rate was applied for the cost-utility analysis. The primary outcome was the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER).
resultsThis study compared the cost-effectiveness of OCT-guided versus angiography guided PCI over short-term (within-trial) and long-term (20 years) horizons. In the short term (1 year), the ICER for OCT versus angiography was substantially high at 2,154,501.65 CNY/QALY, indicating a lack of cost-effectiveness advantage. However, in the lifetime simulation, OCT demonstrated significant cost-effectiveness. When using transition probabilities from the OCCUPI trial, the ICER markedly decreased to 6,815.47 CNY/QALY, indicating strong cost-effectiveness. When using transition probabilities from the meta-analysis incorporating multiple studies, the ICER was 42,374.86 CNY/QALY, below the willingness-to-pay threshold of one times China's per capita GDP (99,665 CNY), also demonstrating cost-effectiveness. Subgroup analyses revealed that the economic advantage of OCT was more pronounced in patients with diabetes, unprotected left main disease, small vessel disease, and multivessel disease. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. The results indicate that OCT-guided PCI exhibits a typical "high initial investment, long-term significant benefit" profile, representing a cost-effective interventional strategy over a lifetime horizon.
conclusionWithin the Chinese healthcare system, OCT-guided PCI demonstrates favorable cost-effectiveness for patients with complex coronary artery lesions. Its higher initial costs are offset by long-term health gains, supporting its value for broader adoption.
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.