Search

Background: Stroke is a leading cause of death worldwide, with carotid atherosclerosis accounting for 10-20% of cases. In Brazil, the Public Health System provides care for roughly two-thirds of the population. No studies, however, have analysed large-scale results of carotid bifurcation surgery in Brazil., Methods: This study aimed to describe rates of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed between 2008 and 2019 in the country through web scraping of publicly available databases., Results: Between 2008 and 2019, 37,424 carotid bifurcation revascularization procedures were performed, of which 22,578 were CAS (60.34%) and 14,846 (39.66%) were CEA. There were 620 in-hospital deaths (1.66%), 336 after CAS (1.48%) and 284 after CEA (1.92%) (P = 0.032). Governmental reimbursement was US$ 77,216,298.85 (79.31% of all reimbursement) for CAS procedures and US$ 20,143,009.63 (20.69%) for CEA procedures. The average cost per procedure for CAS (US$ 3,062.98) was higher than that for CEA (US$ 1,430.33) (P = 0.008)., Conclusions: In Brazil, the frequency of CAS largely surpassed that of CEA. In-hospital mortality rates of CAS were significantly lower than those of CEA, although both had mortality rates within the acceptable rates as dictated by literature. The cost of CAS, however, was significantly higher. This is a pioneering analysis of carotid artery disease management in Brazil that provides, for the first time, preliminary insight into the fact that the low adoption of CEA in the country is in opposition to countries where utilization rates are higher for CEA than for CAS., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is defined as a "group of clinical symptoms compatible with acute myocardial ischemia", representing the leading cause of death worldwide, with a high clinical and financial impact. In this sense, the development of economic studies assessing the costs related to the treatment of ACS should be considered., Objective: To evaluate costs and length of hospital stay between groups of patients treated for ACS undergoing angioplasty with or without stent implantation (stent+ / stent-), coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and treated only clinically (Clinical) from the perspective of the Brazilian Supplementary Health System (SHS)., Methods: A retrospective analysis of medical claims of beneficiaries of health plans was performed considering hospitalization costs and length of hospital stay for management of patients undergoing different types of treatment for ACS, between Jan/2010 and Jun/2012., Results: The average costs per patient were R$ 18,261.77, R$ 30,611.07, R$ 37,454.94 and R$ 40,883.37 in the following groups: Clinical, stent-, stent+ and CABG, respectively. The average costs per day of hospitalization were R$ 1,987.03, R$ 4,024.72, R$ 6,033.40 and R$ 2,663.82, respectively. The average results for length of stay were 9.19 days, 7.61 days, 6.19 days and 15.20 days in these same groups. The differences were significant between all groups except Clinical and stent- and between stent + and CABG groups for cost analysis., Conclusion: Hospitalization costs of SCA are high in the Brazilian SHS, being significantly higher when interventional procedures are required.

Background: The Brazilian Public Health System (SUS, acronym in Portuguese) establishes that coronary angioplasty with the double implant stent must not exceed 20% of the angioplasties, resulting in the need of assigning most of the procedures in patients with multiarterial disease., Objective: The objective of the present study was to assess the paid values by the SUS in order to obtain the complete percutaneous myocardial revascularization in the SUS patients with the multiarterial disease, related to the number of necessary procedures and of implanted stents., Methods: A total of 141 patients with multiarterial coronary disease, submitted to a successful complete revascularization, were included by the stent implant with coronariography in a 6-month period of post-implant. The complete revascularization was defined as the percutaneous treatment of all stenosis > 70% in vessels with diameter > 2 mm. For the costs analysis, the values from the Sistema de Informações Hospitalares (SIH) of the SUS table were considered as R$ 2,263.77, for the procedure; and R$ 2,034.23, per implanted stent., Results: In the period from 7/2006 to 12/2007, 416 stents were implanted in 141 patients. The mean age was of 59.7 +/- 9.9 years old, prevailing the male sex (68.1%). The number of vessels was 356 and the lesions number corresponded to 416. In order to obtain the complete revascularization by the coronary stent implant, it was necessary to stagger in up to four procedures. The mean time between the 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd and 3rd and 4th angioplasties was of 45.8 +/- 37.7; 55.4 +/- 55.3 and 33.5 +/- 19.1 days, respectively., Conclusion: The complete percutaneous revascularization in patients from the SUS with the multiarterial coronary disease, carried out in most of them staggered, causes considerable elevation of public expenses due to the increase of procedures' number.

Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness ratios of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) under two perspectives: the "supplementary medical system" (health plans and private patients) and the public health (SUS) system., Methods: A decision-analytic model using three different therapeutic strategies for coronary lesions: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BMS; with SES; or with BMS followed by SES to treat symptomatic restenosis. Study endpoints were one-year event-free survival and life expectancy. Decision trees were constructed using the results of published registries and clinical trials., Results: One-year restenosis-free survival was 92.7% with SES and 78.8% with BMS. Estimated life expectancy was very similar for all the strategies, ranging from 18.5 to 19 years. Under a nonpublic perspective, the cost difference in the first year between BMS and SES was R$3,816, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$27,403 per event avoided in one year. Under the SUS perspective, the cost per event avoided in one year was R$47,529. In the sensitivity analysis, probability of restenosis, risk reduction expected with SES, the price of the stent and cost of treating restenosis were all important predictors. In the Monte Carlo simulation, data per years of life saved showed very high cost-effectiveness ratios., Conclusion: In the Brazilian model, the cost-effectiveness ratios for SES were elevated. The use of SES was more favorable for patients with high risk of restenosis, as it is associated with elevated costs in restenosis management of and under a nonpublic perspective.

The authors review percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) evolution and its growing application in myocardial revascularization for patients with coronary heart disease in Brazil and worldwide. PCI was introduced in 1977 using only the catheter balloon. Limitations of this method (acute occlusion and coronary restenosis) led to the adoption of coronary stents and more recently the advent of drug-eluting stents2, which were developed to drastically reduce restenosis rates. These developments allowed the exponential growth of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in Brazil which have replaced many bypass surgery procedures and have become the gold standard for the majority of symptomatic patients suffering from coronary artery disease. The preference for this procedure gained new dimensions in 2000 when the Brazilian Public Healthcare System (SUS) began reimbursing for stent procedures. This measure exemplified the importance of the Public Healthcare System's participation in incorporating medical advances and offering a high standard of cardiovascular treatment to a large portion of the Brazilian population. It is emphasized that prevention of in-stent restenosis is complex due to its unpredictable and ubiquitous occurrence. Control of this condition improves quality of life and reduces the recurrence of angina pectoris, the need to perform new revascularization procedures and hospital readmissions. The overall success of the drug-eluting stents has proven to be reliable and consistent in overcoming restenosis and has some beneficial impact for all clinical and angiographic conditions. This paper discusses the adoption and criteria for the use of drug-eluting stents in other countries as well as the recommendations established by the Brazilian Society of Interventional Cardiology for their reimbursement by SUS. The incorporation of new healthcare technology involves two distinct stages. During the first stage, the product is registered with the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA). During this stage the interested company submits to the regulatory agency, results from clinical studies that demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the new device or pharmaceutical product. Frequently, in addition to clinical studies, approval records for clinical use from the regulatory agencies of other countries, mainly the United States of America and the European Community are also submitted. The successful completion of this stage means that the medication or device may be prescribed or used by the physicians in Brazil. The second stage in the incorporation of new healthcare technology involves the reimbursement or financing of the treatment that was approved in the previous stage based on its efficacy and safety. This stage can be more complex than the first one since the new technology, whether a substitution for established treatment methods or the introduction of a new treatment concept, are usually more expensive. The incorporation of new technology requires a cost-effectiveness analysis so that fund administrators can make decisions based on the universal scenario of limited resources to finance healthcare with treatments that are more and more burdensome. The difficulties of funding management are aggravated by medical and social ethical implications that arise when a treatment is approved based on its efficacy and safety but is not made available to patients who could benefit greatly from it. In Brazil, assessment methods for the incorporation of new technology based on reimbursement or financing have not been fully developed for either the private healthcare plans or the Brazilian Public Healthcare System (SUS). The implementation of new technology in both healthcare systems is a slow process and frequently the implementation is a result of the requirements of patients or the organizations that represent them and at times is the result of legal proceedings or political pressure imposed by physicians and their respective scientific societies. Our objective is to review the evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Brazil and its current status in view of the advent of drug-eluting stents, the growing participation of drug-eluting stents in myocardial revascularization to treat patients with coronary heart disease, as well as, to compare the regulatory standards from Brazil and other countries regarding the incorporation and recommendations for the use of this new technology.