Cost-Effectiveness of Pressured-Controlled Intermittent Coronary Sinus Occlusion in ST-Elevated Myocardial Infarction: A Threshold Analysis for Italy on the Cost of the Device
Author(s)
Rognoni C1, Segantin G2, Costa F3, Armeni P4
1Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Bocconi University, Milan, MI, Italy, 2Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Bocconi University, ROME, MI, Italy, 3SDA Bocconi School of Management, Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CeRGAS), Milan, Italy, 4SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, MI, Italy
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES:
Primary Percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the gold standard treatment for ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. Despite improvements in interventional techniques, one year after discharge, mortality remains high (around 14%) and de novo heart failure develops in 20-30% patients. Preliminary data suggest that pressure-controlled intermittent coronary sinus occlusion (PiCSO) might reduce infarct size in patients undergoing PPCI, leading to reductions of up to 34% in hospitalizations for heart failure and of 25% in associated mortality in the first year after procedure. Aim of the study was to perform early cost-effectiveness modeling of PPCI+PiCSO compared to PPCI alone for the treatment of STEMI patients from the National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective in Italy.METHODS:
A Markov model with “post-MI”, “heart failure”, “recurrent-MI”, “stroke”, “recurrent stroke” and “death” health states was developed to estimate life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs associated with PPCI+PiCSO and PPCI alone. Transition probabilities, utility values and costs were derived from published literature. A discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and QALYs, and the model was constructed with 1-month Markov cycles. As in Italy the PiCSO technology is not covered by DRGs, one-way sensitivity analyses were performed on the cost of the medical device according to different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.RESULTS:
Over a lifetime horizon, PPCI+PiCSO leads to 15.87 LYs and 12.16 QALYs versus 15.37 and 11.74 for PPCI alone, respectively. For a WTP threshold of 50,000€, PPCI+PiCSO would be cost-effective versus PPCI alone considering a cost for PiCSO <21,700€; assuming WTP thresholds of 30,000€ and 15,000€, PPCI+PiCSO would be cost-effective versus PPCI alone considering a cost for PiCSO <13,400€ and 7,100€, respectively.CONCLUSIONS:
A cost lower than 21,700€ may be good value for money for a technology that may avoid cardiac events and improve patients’ life expectancy and quality of life.Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 25, Issue 12S (December 2022)
Code
HTA118
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Medical Technologies, Methodological & Statistical Research
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis, Medical Devices, Thresholds & Opportunity Cost
Disease
SDC: Cardiovascular Disorders (including MI, Stroke, Circulatory)
Explore Related HEOR by Topic