Stents farmacológicos para todos!: como?

Feres, Fausto; Costa, J. Ribamar; Costa, Ricardo

doi:10.1590/s2179-83972011000300003

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The limited use of DES, whether in Brazil or in developed countries, is exclusively related to costs, [1][2][3][4][5] which are still very high. The perspective of better results in more severe patients compared with patients in less severe conditions is the largest factor contributing to the use of DES.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Uso do escore de propensão na análise de custo-efetividade com utilização seletiva de stents farmacológicos e não-farmacológicos

Ferreira¹,

Araújo²,

Azevedo³

et al. 2012

Rev. Bras. Cardiol. Invasiva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Studies on the cost-effectiveness ratio of drugeluting stents (DES) are rare. This study aimed to evaluate the results and compare the cost (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio -ICER) per restenosis prevented between DES and bare-metal stents (BMS) using the propensity score. Methods: Two hundred and twenty consecutive patients were included in the study, 111 of whom were treated with DES and 109 with BMS. The propensity score was used to adjust the effect of the intervention by means of matching, stratification and weighting. Results: Most patients were male (67.7% vs. 66.9%; P = 0.53), with a median age of 65.9 years. Patients treated with DES had higher rates of diabetes (54% vs. 17.4%; P < 0.001), three-vessel disease (18.9% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.029) and poor ventricular function (54.1% vs. 22%; P < 0.0001). The diameter of stents was 2.76 ± 0.35 mm vs. 2.91 ± 0.47 mm (P = 0.006), and the sum of the lengths of stents was 37.6 ± 23 mm vs. 24.8 ± 15.8 mm (P < 0.0001). Restenosis was observed in 6.3% vs. 12.8% of the patients (P = 0.099) and in 4.1% vs. 9.8% of the lesions (P = 0.048).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 In Brazil, few studies have mentioned the implications of the costeffectiveness of DES. [2][3][4][5] Although the use of DES has not been cost-effective in the populations evaluated, none of these studies has shown the real financial impact of its use, as they were non-randomised studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%