Does the use of paclitaxel or rapamycin-eluting stent decrease further need for coronary-artery bypass grafting when compared with bare-metal stent?

Cost effectiveness of drug-eluting stents as compared with bare metal stents in patients with coronary artery disease

The aim of this study was to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness of replacing bare metal stents (BMS) by drug-eluting stents (DES) when using trial data and registry data. We developed a Markov model (model of cost effectiveness of coronary artery disease) in which 60-year-old patients started by undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute or subacute coronary artery disease. The patients are followed until death or 100 years of age. Data on the occurrence of events (revascularization, acute myocardial infarction, and death) were based on Scandinavian registry data. Separate analyses were conducted with data on effectiveness based on randomized controlled trials and patient registries. On using trial data, it was found that sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) yield 0.003 greater life expectancy and $3300 lower costs than do BMS (dominant strategy). Paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) yield 0.148 more life years than do SES at additional lifetime costs of $2800 ($21,400 per life year gained). On using registry data, the cost per life year gained was found to be $4900 when replacing BMS with DES. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses, on the other hand, indicate that PES only has a 50%-75% probability of being cost effective, regardless of the type of effectiveness data. DESs are cost effective with current willingness to pay for life year gains. Whether PES or SES is the most effective DES remains uncertain.

[Evidence-based practices published in Brazil: identification and analysis of their types and methodological approches]

This is an integrative review of Brazilian studies on evidence-based practices (EBP) in health, published in ISI/JCR journals in the last 10 years. The aim was to identify the specialty areas that most accomplished these studies, their foci and methodological approaches. Based on inclusion criteria, 144 studies were selected. The results indicate that most EBP studies addressed childhood and adolescence, infectious diseases, psychiatrics/mental health and surgery. The predominant foci were prevention, treatment/rehabilitation, diagnosis and assessment. The most used methods were systematic review with or without meta-analysis, protocol review or synthesis of available evidence studies, and integrative review. A strong multiprofessional expansion of EBP is found in Brazil, contributing to the search for more selective practices by collecting, recognizing and critically analyzing the produced knowledge. The study also contributes to the analysis itself of ways to do research and new research possibilities.