English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background The use of drug-eluting stents (DESs), compared with bare-metal stents (BMSs), in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has reduced the rate of restenosis, without an impact on mortality but with an increase in costs. Medical literature lacks randomized studies that economically compare these 2 stent types within the reality of the Brazilian Unified Public Health System (SUS). Objective To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between DES and BMS in SUS patients with single-vessel coronary artery disease. Methods Over a 3-year period, patients with symptomatic single-vessel coronary artery disease were randomized in a 1:2 ratio to receive a DES or BMS during PCI, with a 1-year clinical follow-up. The evaluation included in-stent restenosis (ISR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), major adverse events, and cost-effectiveness for each group. P-values &lt;0.05 were considered significant. Results In the DES group, of 74 patients (96.1%) who completed the follow-up, 1 developed ISR (1.4%), 1 had TLR (1.4%), and 1 died (1.4%), with no cases of thrombosis. In the BMS group, of 141 patients (91.5%), ISR occurred in 14 (10.1%), TLR in 10 (7.3%), death in 3 (2.1%), and thrombosis in 1 (0.74%). In the economic analysis, the cost of the procedure was R$ 5,722.21 in the DES group and R$ 4,085.21 in the BMS group. The effectiveness by ISR and TLR was 8.7% for DES and 5.9% for BMS, with an ICER of R$ 18,816.09 and R$ 27,745.76, respectively. Conclusions In the SUS, DESs were cost-effective in accordance with the cost-effectiveness threshold recommended by the World Health Organization (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 115(1):80-89).

Custo-efetividade do Stent Farmacológico na Intervenção Coronariana Percutânea no SUS