Search

This article presents the results of an 18 month study on the cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in patients at high or low risk of major cardiac events. To assess the value of these medical devices, the authors looked at cost of the procedure and the rate of follow-up events which were usually vessel revascularisations avoided by placement of the stents. The study found that overall costs were higher for patients with drug-eluting stents over those with bare metal stents due to the higher price of the drug-eluting stent. If used in all patients, the drug-eluting stents would not be good value for the money. They are cost effective in patients who need small vessel or bypass graft stenting but not in those who need larger vessel stenting.

This article presents a meta-analysis of outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents. The study sought to see if there was a difference in outcomes between the sirolimus-eluting stents, the paclitaxel-eluting stents and the bare-metal stents. The study found that mortality was similar in all three groups. In comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal, the drug-eluting stents were associated with the lowest rate of myocardial infarction. The risk of late definite stent thrombosis was increased with the paclitaxel-eluting stents. The reduction in target lesion revascularisation was more pronounced with the sirolimus-eluting stents which leads the authors to conclude that sirolimus-eluting stents seem to be clinically better than the other two.