Drug-Eluting Stents Often Used In Patients At Low Risk Of Restenosis 2

The chief advantage of drug-eluting stents (DES) over bare-metal stents is that they significantly reduce the risk of restenosis. The chief disadvantages of DES are their greater cost and the requirement for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after DES implantation.

In a study published in Archives of Internal Medicine,  Amit Amin and colleagues analyzed data from 1.5 million PCI procedures included in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI registry to assess whether a higher risk for target vessel revascularization (TVR) is associated with greater DES use and to estimate the economic impact of lower DES use in patients who are at low risk for TVR.

The authors calculated that 43.0% of patients were at low risk for TVR, 43.8% were at moderate risk, and 13.2% were at high risk. DES was used 73.9% of the time in the low risk group (TVR risk <10%), 78.0% in the moderate risk group (TVR risk 10-20%), and 83.2% in the high risk group (TVR risk >20%). According to the investigators, cutting DES use by half in low-risk patients would lower US health care costs by $205 million each year, at the cost of an increase in the overall TVR rate of 0.5%.

The authors concluded that “a strategy of lower DES use among patients at low risk of TVR could present an important opportunity to reduce health care expenditures while preserving the vast majority of their clinical benefit.”

In an invited commentary, Peter W. Groeneveld writes that “the use pattern of DES during the past 9 years illustrates how far away the system is from consistently embracing value-based medical decision making, and it also enumerates the many barriers and inertial practices in US health care that must be surmounted to reach economic sustainability.”

Here is the press release from Archives:

Use of Drug-Eluting Stents Varies Widely; Only Modestly Correlated with Risk of Coronary Artery Restenosis

CHICAGO – A study based on more than 1.5 million percutaneous coronary intervention procedures (such as balloon angioplasty or stent placement to open narrowed coronary arteries) suggests that the use of drug-eluting stents varies widely among U.S. physicians, and is only modestly correlated with the patient’s risk of coronary artery restenosis (renarrowing), according to a report published Online First by Archives of Internal Medicine, a JAMA Network publication.

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are effective in reducing restenosis and the benefits are greatest in patients at the highest risk of target-vessel revascularization (TVR). Drug-eluting stents cost more than bare-metal stents (BMS), and they require prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), which increases costs, bleeding and complication risk if DAPT is ended too early, according to the study background.

Amit P. Amin, M.D., M.Sc., of Barnes Jewish Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Mo., and colleagues analyzed more than 1.5 million PCI procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI registry from 2004 through much of 2010. They sought to examine variation in DES use among physicians, whether predicted TVR risk with bare-metal stents was associated with DES use, and what the estimated clinical and economic consequences were of lower DES use among patients with low TVR risk.

“The present study demonstrates that in current U.S. practice, DES use is prevalent, even among patients at low risk of developing restenosis. There was also significant variation in the rate of DES use by individual physicians. A reduction in DES use among patients at low risk for restenosis was projected to be associated with substantial costs savings with only a small increase in TVR events,” the authors note.

According to study results, drug-eluting stent use was 73.9 percent among those at a low risk for TVR, 78 percent among those at moderate risk and 83.2 percent among those at the highest TVR risk.

The study suggests that a 50 percent reduction in the use of DES in low-TVR-risk patients was projected to lower health care costs by about $205 million per year in the U.S., while increasing the overall TVR event rate by 0.5 percent.

“Given the marked variation in physicians’ DES use, a strategy of lower DES use among patients at low risk of TVR could present an important opportunity to reduce health care expenditures while preserving the vast majority of their clinical benefit,” the authors conclude.

(Arch Intern Med. Published online July 9, 2012. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3093.)

Editor’s Note: This analysis was funded by the American College of Cardiology. This research was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR). Authors also made funding and financial disclosures. Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, financial disclosures, funding and support, etc.

Invited Commentary: Our Health System’s Flawed Relationship with Technology

In an invited commentary, Peter W. Groeneveld, M.D., M.S., of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, writes: “New medical technologies are the primary drivers of rising health care costs, but the U.S. health care system has generally performed poorly in incorporating new drugs, devices, imaging techniques and invasive procedures in a manner that maximizes the value – defined as health benefits relative to costs – delivered to patients while simultaneously restraining the use of such technologies in settings where they predictably provide little or no value.”

“The use pattern of DES during the past nine years illustrates how far away the system is from consistently embracing value-based medical decision making, and it also enumerates the many barriers and inertial practices in U.S. health care that must be surmounted to reach economic sustainability,” Groeneveld concludes.

(Arch Intern Med. Published online July 9, 2012. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.2724)

# # #

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. Hi just wanted to let you know there is a typo on the right side panel: you say “Follow Cardopbrief via email;” I believe it is supposed to be “Follow Cardiobrief via email.” Thanks!

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s