Article

Coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease: a rapid and systematic review.

Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, UK.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) (Impact Factor: 5.12). 02/2000; 4(23):1-153.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Coronary artery stents are prosthetic linings inserted into coronary arteries via a catheter to widen the artery and increase blood flow to ischaemic heart muscle. They are used in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease (IHD). IHD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality (123,000 deaths per annum) in the UK and a major cost to the NHS. Clinical effects of IHD include subacute manifestations (stable and unstable angina) and acute manifestations (particularly myocardial infarction [MI]). Treatment includes attention to risk factors, drug therapy, percutaneous invasive interventions (PCIs) (including percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty [PTCA] and stents) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In the last decade there has been a steady and significant increase in the rate of PCIs for IHD. In the UK, rates per million population increased from 174 in 1991 to 437 in 1998. Stents are now used in about 70% of PCIs. Data from the rest of Europe suggest there is potential for PCI and stent rates to increase considerably. In the UK there is evidence of under-provision and inequity of access to revascularisation procedures. OBJECTIVES: The following questions were addressed. 1. What are the effects and effectiveness of elective stent insertion versus PTCA in subacute IHD, particularly stable angina and unstable angina? 2. What are the effects and effectiveness of elective stent insertion versus CABG in subacute IHD, particularly stable angina and unstable angina? 3. What are the effects and effectiveness of elective stent insertion versus PTCA in acute MI (AMI)? 4. What are best estimates of UK cost for elective stent insertion, PTCA and CABG in the circumstances of review questions 1 to 3? 5. What are best estimates of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility for elective stent insertion relative to PTCA or CABG in the circumstances of review questions 1 to 3? METHODS: A systematic review addressing the objectives was undertaken. DATA SOURCES: A search was made for RCTs comparing stents (inserted during a PTCA procedure) with PTCA alone or with CABG in any manifestation of IHD. The search strategy covered the period from 1990 to November 1999 and included searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIDS ISI, The Cochrane Library), Internet sites, and hand-searches of cardiology conference abstracts and 1999 issues of cardiology journals. Lead researchers and local clinical experts were contacted. Manufacturers' submissions to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence were searched. The search strategy was expanded to look for relevant economic analyses and information to inform the economic model (including searching MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness). Searches focused on research that reported costs and quality of life data associated with IHD and interventional cardiology. STUDY SELECTION: For the review of clinical effectiveness, inclusion criteria were: (i) RCT design; (ii) study population comprising adults with IHD in native or graft vessels (including patients with subacute IHD or AMI); (iii) procedure involving elective insertion of coronary artery stents; (iv) elective PTCA (including PTCA with provisional stenting) or CABG as comparator; (v) outcomes defined as one or more of: combined event rate (or event-free survival), death, MI, angina, target vessel revascularisation, CABG, repeat PTCA, angiographic outcomes; (vi) trials that had closed and reported results for all or almost all recruited patients. For the economic evaluation, studies of adults with IHD were included if they were of the following types: studies reporting UK costs; comparative economic evaluation combining both costs and outcomes; economic evaluations reporting costs and outcomes separately for the years 1998 and 1999 (to ensure current practice was included).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

0 Followers
 · 
77 Views
  • Source
    Evidence report/technology assessment (Summary) 06/2003;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Coronary stents are widely used in interventional cardiology, but a current quantitative systematic overview comparing routine coronary stenting with standard percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and restricted stenting (provisional stenting) has not been published. To summarize results from all randomized clinical trials comparing routine coronary stenting with standard PTCA. Electronic databases were searched by using the key words angioplasty and stent. References from identified articles were also reviewed. In addition, several prominent general medical and cardiology journals were searched and agencies known to perform systematic reviews were consulted. All comparative randomized clinical trials were included, except those involving primary angioplasty for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. A specified protocol was followed, and two of the authors independently extracted the data. Outcomes assessed were total mortality, myocardial infarction, angiographic restenosis, coronary artery bypass surgery, repeated PTCA, and freedom from angina. The results were synthesized by using a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model. A total of 29 trials involving 9918 patients were identified. There was no evidence for a difference between routine coronary stenting and standard PTCA in terms of deaths or myocardial infarctions (odds ratio, 0.90 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.72 to 1.11]) or the need for coronary artery bypass surgery (odds ratio, 1.01 [CrI, 0.79 to 1.31]). Coronary stenting reduced the rate of restenosis (odds ratio, 0.52 [CrI, 0.37 to 0.69]) and the need for repeated PTCA (odds ratio, 0.59 [CrI, 0.50 to 0.68]). The trials showed a wide range of crossover rates from PTCA to stenting. By use of a multiplicative model, each 10% increase in crossover rate decreased the need for repeated angioplasty by approximately 8% (odds ratio multiplying factor, 1.08 [CrI, 0.98 to 1.18]). Routine stenting probably reduces the need for repeated angioplasty by fewer than 4 to 5 per 100 treated persons compared with PTCA with provisional stenting. Studies were not blinded and suggest a bias with a possible overestimation of this benefit. In the controlled environment of randomized clinical trials, routine coronary stenting is safe but probably not associated with important reductions in rates of mortality, acute myocardial infarction, or coronary artery bypass surgery compared with standard PTCA with provisional stenting. Coronary stenting is associated with substantial reductions in angiographic restenosis rates and the subsequent need for repeated PTCA, although this benefit may be overestimated because of trial designs. The incremental benefit of routine stenting for reducing repeated angioplasty diminishes as the crossover rate of stenting with conventional PTCA increases.
    Annals of internal medicine 06/2003; 138(10):777-86. DOI:10.1016/S1062-1458(03)00306-4 · 16.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To calculate the cost of angina pectoris to the UK National Health Service (NHS) in the year 2000. Calculation of the cost of hospital admissions, revascularisation procedures, hospital outpatient consultations, general practice (GP) consultations, and prescribed drug treatment. 634 000 individuals (1.1% of the UK population) consulted GPs 2.35 million times, costing pound 60.5 million. They required 16.0 million prescriptions (cost pound 80.7 million) and 254 000 hospital outpatient referrals (cost pound 30.4 million). There were 149 000 hospital admissions, 117 000 coronary angiograms, 21 400 coronary artery bypass operations, 17 700 percutaneous coronary interventions, and 516 000 outpatient visits, at a cost of pound 208.4 million, pound 69.9 million, pound 106.2 million, pound 60.7 million, and pound 52.2 million, respectively. The direct cost of angina was therefore pound 669 million (1.3% of total NHS expenditure), with hospital bed occupancy and procedures accounting for 32% and 35% of this total, respectively. Angina is a common and costly public health problem. It consumed over 1% of all NHS expenditure in the year 2000, mainly because of hospital bed occupancy and revascularisation procedures. This is likely to be a conservative estimate of its true cost.
    Heart (British Cardiac Society) 09/2003; 89(8):848-53. DOI:10.1136/heart.89.8.848 · 6.02 Impact Factor