High-Dose BoluS TiRofibAn and Sirolimus Eluting STEnt versus Abiciximab and Bare Metal Stent in Acute MYocardial Infarction (STRATEGY) Study—Protocol Design and Demography of the First 100 Patients

BACKGROUND

Primary bare metal stenting and abciximab infusion are currently considered the best available reperfusion strategy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Sirolimus eluting stents (SES), compared to bare metal stent (BMS), greatly reduce the incidence of binary restenosis and target vessel revascularisation (TVR), but their use on a routine basis results in a significant increase in medical costs. With current European list prices, the use of tirofiban instead of abciximab would save enough money to absorb the difference between SES and BMS.

AIM

To assess whether in patients with STEMI the combination of SES with high dose bolus (HDB) tirofiban results in a similar incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACE) but in a lower binary restenosis rate after six months compared to BMS and abciximab.

METHODS AND RESULTS

160 patients are required to satisfy the primary composite end-point, including MACE and binary restenosis. The study is ongoing: the current paper focuses on the methodology and demography of the first 100 patients so far enrolled. Patients randomised to HDB tirofiban (n = 50, mean age: 62 +/- 12, 40 males) and abciximab (n = 50, mean age: 63 +/- 12, 38 males) do not differ for medical history, presentation profile, medications at discharge, angiographic profile and creatine-kinase MB-fraction at peak.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the trial will be available by the end of 2004: they will be crucial for the cardiologists to know whether the gold standard for AMI treatment should be reconsidered after the introduction of SES into the clinical practice.

Endoscopic intubation with conventional plastic stents: a safe and cost-effective palliation for inoperable esophageal cancer

Access to expensive equipment and costly self-expanding metal endoprostheses is limited in some regions where unresectable esophageal cancer is not infrequent. The aim of this study was to review the long-term results of palliation of malignant esophageal obstruction using low-priced conventional plastic stents. One hundred sixty-nine patients with dysphagia due to inoperable esophageal cancer underwent esophageal intubation under endoscopic control alone, without general anesthesia, by the pulsion method. Stents mounted on their delivery device were inserted over an endoscopically placed guide wire. Improvement in swallowing was seen in all patients. Dysphagia scores have improved from 3.64 +/- 0.21 to 1.08 +/- 0.17. Major early procedure-related morbidity was high at 0.6% with one intramural perforation (no transmural perforation at all). Minimal mucosal bleeding was seen with 72 cases (42.6%). Procedure-related mortality was 0%. Late procedure-related complications requiring further endoscopic procedures occurred in 8.2% (tube occlusion: 5.3%, tube dislocation: 2.9%). Our 7-day mortality was 0% and 5 patients died within 30 days, usually from the disease itself. Those surviving the procedure (more than 7 days) had a mean survival of 209 days. Esophageal plastic stents can be accurately and safely placed under direct endoscopic control with lower costs. Therefore, endoscopic intubation remains a useful palliative treatment for patients with unresectable carcinoma of the esophagus.

Drug-eluting stents: new era and new concerns

At present there is much excitement about drug-eluting stents, which hold promise for the treatment of coronary artery disease. This ingenious therapy involves coating the outside of a standard coronary stent with a thin polymer containing medication that can prevent scarring at the site of coronary intervention. Early trials with sirolimus coated stents showed that they might prevent coronary artery restenosis, but later studies, involving more complex coronary lesions, did not show a complete absence of restenosis. Recent studies have demonstrated the long term cost effectiveness of drug-eluting stents as they have reduced the need for revascularisation procedures. At present there are few data on the safety and effectiveness of stents over follow up periods exceeding two years, and data obtained from animal models of stenting might not be completely applicable to humans. There are concerns that drug-eluting stents might delay, rather than inhibit, restenosis. Also there is concern regarding the inflammation caused by the polymer substrate. This article reviews the present data on drug-eluting stents and their benefits, shortcomings, and concerns.

Strategic savings. As supply costs climb, hospitals rethink their purchasing strategies

Surging prices for supplies are intensifying the pressure on hospitals already reeling from skyrocketing liability, staffing and technology costs. The prices for certain supplies far outstrip general inflation and, executives say, could undermine the financial viability of some service lines. That's forcing some hospitals to rethink their purchasing strategies.

[Acute coronary syndrome: ST-segment elevation infarct]

Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation has evolved considerably over the past decades. In this review, we will limit the discussion to STEMI, and describe some recent developments and new insights into the evidence base of various therapeutic options. We will address the contemporary antithrombotic approach to treatment of this disorder. The controversy regarding optimal treatment of ACS, whether invasive or conservative, is discussed. This seems all the mandatory more as many study populations are not directly comparable, and some therapies are nowhere at hand. Progressively important cost-benefit considerations are another aspect that makes the assessment of the evidence claimed difficult.

Three-Year Outcome After Coronary Stenting Versus Bypass Surgery for the Treatment of Multivessel Disease

Background— The primary results of Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study reported a greater need for repeated revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting (PCI). However, PCI was less expensive than coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and offered the same degree of protection against death, stroke, and myocardial infarction.

Methods and Results— Patients with multivessel disease (n=1205) were randomly assigned to either CABG or PCI and followed up for up to 3 years. Survival rates without stroke or myocardial infarction were similar in each group at 1 year and 3 years (90.5% versus 91.4% for PCI versus CABG at 1 year and 87.2% versus 88.4% for PCI versus CABG at 3 years). However, the respective repeat revascularization rates were 21.2% and 26.7% at 1 and 3 years in patients allocated to PCI, compared with 3.8% and 6.6% in patients allocated to CABG ( P <0.0001). Diabetes ( P <0.0009) and maximal pressure for stent deployment ( P <0.002) are the strongest independent predictors of events at 3 years after PCI, whereas left anterior descending coronary artery grafting ( P <0.006) is the best predictor of event-free survival at 3 years after CABG. The incremental cost of surgery compared with PCI for an event-free patient was 19 257 at 1 year but decreased to 10 492 at 3 years. It remained at 142 391 at 3 years when revascularization procedures were excluded in the efficacy end point, however.

Conclusions— Three-year survival rates without stroke and myocardial infarction are identical in both groups, and the cost/benefit ratio of stenting is determined primarily by the increasing need for revascularization in the PCI group.

Economic impact of drug-eluting stents on hospital systems: a disease-state model

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting intracoronary stents decrease restenosis and later revascularization. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), recognizing the financial and clinical impact of this technology, recently proposed accelerated reimbursement to hospitals.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A disease state-transition computer model simulated the clinical and economic consequences to hospitals of drug-eluting stents over 5 years. Model parameters combined information from a longitudinal clinical database, a hospital cost-accounting system, and a survey instrument. Simulations were repeated 1000 times for each set of parameters. With 85% of stent procedures shifted to drug-eluting stents in the first year of availability, the mean number of repeat revascularizations dropped by 60.4% at year 5. With no changes in reimbursement policy, a hospital with a catheterization laboratory volume of 3112 patients yearly converted from a 2.01 million dollars (M) annual profit to an 8.10 M dollars loss in the first year (95% CI 8.09 M dollars to 8.12 M dollars) and 8.7 M dollars annual losses in later years. This represented an overall change in cash flow of 55.71 M dollars (95% CI 55.66 M dollars to 55.76 M dollars) away from the hospital over 5 years. The incremental reimbursement proposed by HHS reduced this loss to 4.75 M dollars in the first year and to 5.6 M dollars annually thereafter. In sensitivity analyses, the conversion of patients from bypass surgery to drug-eluting stents was the largest driver of overall cash flow shifts.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Medicare has proposed to increase reimbursement to ease the impact of drug-eluting stents on hospitals, this increase will not totally offset the costs.

Can we afford to eliminate restenosis?

Over the past decade, coronary stenting has emerged as the dominant form of percutaneous coronary revascularization. However, bare metal stents remain limited by a high incidence of restenosis, leading to frequent repeat revascularization procedures and substantial economic burden. Antiproliferative drug-eluting stents (DES) have recently demonstrated dramatic reductions in rates of restenosis, compared with conventional stenting, but important concerns about their costs have been raised. In this article, we summarize current evidence on the economic impact of restenosis and explore the potential benefits and economic outcomes of DES. In addition to examining the long-term costs of this promising technology, we consider the potential cost-effectiveness of DES from a health care system perspective and the impact of specific patient, lesion, and provider characteristics on these parameters.

Paradigm shifts in cardiovascular medicine

Cardiovascular medicine is changing rapidly with the development, testing, and introduction of new diagnostic and therapeutic methods. New interventional techniques such as the use of drug-eluting stents have important implications for the care of individual patients and the delivery and economics of health care in general. Drug-eluting stents have been shown to improve outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention by significantly reducing restenosis rates. Two randomized trials have documented that per 100 patients treated with the sirolimus drug-eluting stent, 12.5 to 13.6 patients avoided the need for subsequent target lesion revascularization, when compared with patients treated with conventional stents. The economic effect of the introduction of these stents, which are projected to be two to three times as expensive as conventional stents, is complex and depends on which segment of health care is considered. These stents will be favorably received by patients, physicians, employers, and society as well as payers. However, hospitals may be adversely affected by having increased procedural costs for the stents, along with fewer procedures for evaluation and treatment of restenosis and probably decreased surgical volumes. Drug-eluting stents are only the first of many new technologic advances that will affect cardiovascular care. These procedures have many features in common, including: 1). replacement of major surgical procedures with less invasive approaches; and 2). redistribution of costs, with a decrease in hospital profits but potentially lower costs of health care delivery for society as a whole.

Introduction of stent grafts in the management of patients with a abdominal or thoracic aortic aneurysm: why, perspectives, results

In May 2001 we worked out a system in order to reimburse stentgrafts through the compulsory insurance. An agreement was signed between the different bodies of the NISDI (INAMI/RIZIV) and the association of radiologists and vascular surgeons, specifying the conditions of reimbursement. In this article, I will explain the medical indications as well as the conditions that have to be met by the implanting surgeons. After two years, a first evaluation was made. The figures show some remarkable evolutions. The author therefore has some considerations concerning the procedure.

[Is systematic use of drug-eluting stents justified? Arguments against]

Antiproliferative drug-eluting stents represent a miles tone in advances in interventional cardiology. The amount and quality of the scientific evidence now show these new stents to be highly effective in reducing neointimal proliferation, and hence the process of restenosis. Their clinical impact can be expected to become relevant in terms of both increased indications for angioplasty and the extent of stent usage. However, at this time the systematic use of drug-eluting stents for all patients is not considered justified, because of their limited availability, gaps in our knowledge of their safety, and because their unquestioned clinical benefits have been magnified by exaggerated reports of the clinical problem restenosis represents. Currently, the cost of these stents remains high, and the cost/benefit ratio for certain patients is unfavorable. For these reasons selective use of these new stents is considered more reasonable: they should be used only for those patients who will obtain, in absolute terms, the greatest clinical benefit.

Stenting or stoma creation for patients with inoperable malignant colonic obstructions? Results of a study and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost of endoscopic palliative treatment with selfexpanding metallic stents with that of stoma creation in the management of inoperable malignant colonic obstructions.

METHODS

A total of 30 patients with inoperable malignant partial obstruction (due to metastases, hemodynamic instability, or pulmonary instability) in the left colon arising from colorectal or ovarian cancer were included in the study. Fifteen were randomized to undergo palliative metallic colonic stent placement and 15 to undergo stoma creation. The efficacy and safety of the two methods was compared. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed, including the cost of postinterventional care.

RESULTS

Stents were placed successfully in 14 of 15 patients. In one patient with obstruction of a tortuous rectosigmoid flexure colon, stenting was not possible; this patient was excluded from the study. During the follow-up period, a moderate, nonocclusive ingrowth of tumor into the stent lumen was observed in six patients; they were all treated with internal laser ablation. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that although the stoma creation procedure was less expensive, the total difference in average costs for the two methods was 6.9% (132 Euros).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-expanding metallic stent placement is a palliative alternative to colostomy for patients with inoperable malignant colonic strictures. This treatment option provides a better quality of life for the patient, without the psychological repercussions of a colostomy, and it appears to be cost-effective.

Interventional cardiology: a nurse manager's perspective

Invasive cardiac care measures improve patient outcomes and challenge departmental budgets.

Drug-eluting stent task force: Final report and recommendations of the working committees on cost-effectiveness/economics, access to care, and medicolegal issues

Coronary artery disease remains a major health problem worldwide. Since introduction of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and stents, much progress has been made. Percutaneous coronary intervention, however, has been limited by restenosis (repeat obstruction of arteries that have been previously treated. Introduction of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in April 2003 was a major breakthrough in preventing restenosis. In March 2003, The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) published a position statement on the clinical implications of DESs, recommending an evidence-based adoption strategy. Subsequently, in May 2003, SCAI formed a multidisciplinary Drug Eluting Stent (DES) Task Force to address the significant nonclinical ramifications posed by DESs: medicolegal, financial, and access to care. The Task Force included representatives from physician societies, industry, academia, the reimbursement community, and health policy organizations. The resultant report presents analyses, options, and recommendations regarding those nonclinical issues based on the collective experience and knowledge of the Task Force members. The Task Force trusts that this report will be of value to the diverse constituencies involved with introduction of this important new technology.

The paclitaxel (TAXUS)-eluting stent: a review of its use in the management of de novo coronary artery lesions

The TAXUSExpress stent contains paclitaxel 1 microg/mm(2). On deployment, paclitaxel is slowly released into the intimal tissue of the coronary artery to prevent cell proliferation and neointimal hyperplasia. When deployed in patients with previously untreated coronary artery lesions, the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) effectively reduces the need for revascularization without increasing the risk of in-stent thrombosis. While long-term outcomes data and comparative efficacy and cost-benefit trials versus other drug-eluting stents are required, the PES appears to be an attractive alternative for the management of de novo coronary artery lesions. PHARMACOLOGIC PROPERTIES: The PES comprises a stainless steel stent coated with a non-erodible biocompatible polyolefin matrix containing paclitaxel 1 microg/mm(2). Paclitaxel dose dependently inhibits vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation at therapeutic concentrations as a result of binding to and stabilizing cellular microtubules. This prevents the cascade of events associated with obstructive in-stent neointimal hyperplasia. Paclitaxel was released in a controlled manner from the stent coating in in vitro studies. The higher release rate in the first 2 days after implantation (to reduce response to implantation injury) slows over the next 8-10 days. The drug is rapidly taken up by intimal cells with minimal dispersion in the plasma; it was not detected systemically after stent deployment in clinical trials. Paclitaxel is extensively bound to proteins (88-98%), and is principally metabolized in the liver, undergoing biliary clearance after systemic administration. THERAPEUTIC EFFICACY: The efficacy of the PES was compared with that of a bare-metal stent (BMS) in a number of randomized, double-blind, multicenter trials in patients with de novo coronary artery lesions. The TAXUS I and II trials used the NIR stent, while the pivotal TAXUS IV trial used the Express stent. The primary endpoints of the well designed TAXUS II and IV trials indicated superiority for the PES over the BMS. Twice as many patients receiving the BMS required target vessel revascularization at 9 months postprocedure and, 6 months following the procedure, the in-stent neointimal volume in the PES system was only one-third of that in the BMS. The incidence of cumulative major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI], or target vessel revascularization [TVR]) was also significantly lower in PES than BMS recipients at 9 and 12 months postprocedure. The incidence of cardiac death and MI was low and similar between treatment groups; however, TVR was significantly reduced by the PES versus the BMS. Other secondary endpoints, such as target lesion revascularization, luminal diameter stenosis, minimal luminal diameter, and serial intravascular ultrasound measurements from one or both trials supported these results. Preliminary analysis of the subgroup of patients with diabetes mellitus in the TAXUS IV trial suggested that the PES was also effective in diabetic patients who receive oral medications. The group receiving insulin was too small to draw meaningful conclusions.

TOLERABILITY

Because of the small paclitaxel dosages and the mainly local uptake, systemic adverse events associated with the PES are considered unlikely. The incidences of cardiac death and MI were very low and similar in both groups. Local events such as in-stent aneurysms, incomplete stent apposition, or in-stent thrombosis occurred at a similar rate in PES and BMS recipients. There has been no evidence of late thrombosis in PES recipients followed for 2 years. The rate of late luminal loss in the 5mm of vessel proximal and distal to the stent edges was significantly lower in PES than BMS systems. PHARMACOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS: Initial deployment costs associated with the PES are likely to be offset by savings in repeat procedures, according to a cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK.