Viewpoint
Can we afford to eliminate restenosis?: Can we afford not to?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2003.11.020Get rights and content
Under an Elsevier user license
open archive

Abstract

Over the past decade, coronary stenting has emerged as the dominant form of percutaneous coronary revascularization. However, bare metal stents remain limited by a high incidence of restenosis, leading to frequent repeat revascularization procedures and substantial economic burden. Antiproliferative drug-eluting stents (DES) have recently demonstrated dramatic reductions in rates of restenosis, compared with conventional stenting, but important concerns about their costs have been raised. In this article, we summarize current evidence on the economic impact of restenosis and explore the potential benefits and economic outcomes of DES. In addition to examining the long-term costs of this promising technology, we consider the potential cost-effectiveness of DES from a health care system perspective and the impact of specific patient, lesion, and provider characteristics on these parameters.

Abbreviations

BMS
bare metal stent(s)
CABG
coronary artery bypass graft surgery
CAD
coronary artery disease
DES
drug-eluting stent(s)
DRG
diagnosis-related group
PCI
percutaneous coronary intervention
QALY
quality-adjusted life-year
QOL
quality of life
TVR
target vessel revascularization

Cited by (0)

Dr. Cohen has received grant support from manufacturers of both drug-eluting and bare metal stents, including Cordis Corp. (Miami Lakes, Florida), Boston Scientific (Natick, Massachusetts), Guidant (Santa Clara, California), and Medtronic (Minneapolis, Minnesota).