Free access

Device Evaluation

13 June 2016

Are drug-coated balloons cost effective for femoropopliteal occlusive disease? A comparison of bare metal stents and uncoated balloons

Authors: Thomas G Poder [email protected] and Jean-François FisetteAuthor Info & Affiliations

Publication: J. Comp. Eff. Res.

Volume 5, Number 4

https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2015-0016

PDF OtherFormats

Abstract

Aim: To perform a cost–effectiveness analysis to help hospital decision-makers with regard to the use of drug-coated balloons compared with bare metal stents and uncoated balloons for femoropopliteal occlusive disease. Methods: Clinical outcomes were extracted from the results of meta-analyses already published, and cost units are those used in the Quebec healthcare network. The literature review was limited to the last four years to obtain the most recent data. The cost–effectiveness analysis was based on a 2-year perspective, and risk factors of reintervention were considered. Results: The cost–effectiveness analysis indicated that drug-coated balloons were generally more efficient than bare metal stents, particularly for patients with higher risk of reintervention (up to CAD$1686 per patient TASC II C or D). Compared with uncoated balloons, results indicated that drug-coated balloons were more efficient if the reintervention rate associated with uncoated balloons is very high and for patients with higher risk of reintervention (up to CAD$3301 per patient). Conclusion: The higher a patient's risk of reintervention, the higher the savings associated with the use of a drug-coated balloon will be. For patients at lower risk, the uncoated balloon strategy is still recommended as a first choice for endovascular intervention.

Supplementary Material

File (suppl_file.docx)

Download
13.85 KB

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: •• of considerable interest

1.

Hirsch AT, Criqui MH, Treat-Jacobson D et al. Peripheral arterial disease detection, awareness, and treatment in primary care. JAMA 286, 1317–1324 (2001).

2.

Simpson EL, Kearns B, Stevenson MD, Cantrell AJ, Littlewood C, Michaels JA. Enhancements to angioplasty for peripheral arterial occlusive disease: systematic review, cost–effectiveness assessment and expected value of information analysis. Health Technol. Assess. 18, 1–252 (2014).

•• A high-quality meta-analysis comparing drug-coated ballon with uncoated balloon.

3.

Katsanos K, Spiliopoulos S, Karunanithy N, Krokidis M, Sabharwal T, Taylor P. Bayesian network meta-analysis of nitinol stents, covered stents, drug-eluting stents, and drug-coated balloons in the femoropopliteal artery. J. Vasc. Surg. 59, 1123–1133 (2014).

•• A high-quality network meta-analysis comparing drug-coated balloon with various devices.

4.

Kasapis C, Henke PK, Chetcuti SJ et al. Routine stent implantation vs. percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in femoropopliteal artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur. Heart J. 30, 44–55 (2009).

5.

Norgren L, Hiatt WR, Dormandy JA, Nehler MR, Harris KA, Fowkes FGR. Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II). J. Vasc. Surg. 45(Suppl.), S5–S67 (2007).

6.

Rooke TW, Hirsch AT, Misra S et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update of the guideline for the management of patients with peripheral artery disease (updating the 2005 guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelin. J. Vasc. Surg. 54, e32–e58 (2011).

7.

Silva Marques J, Pinto FJ. The vulnerable plaque: current concepts and future perspectives on coronary morphology, composition and wall stress imaging. Rev. Port. Cardiol. (English Ed.) 33, 101–110 (2014).

8.

Marques L, Preiss M, Preuss H, Hopf-Jensen S, Mueller-Huelsbeck S. Treating with an implant: BMS or DES? J. Cardiovasc. Surg. (Torino) 54, 455–467 (2013).

9.

Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62, 1013–1020 (2009).

10.

Hailey D, Roine R, Ohinmaa A. Systematic review of evidence for the benefits of telemedicine. J. Telemed. Telecare 8(Suppl. 1), 1–30 (2002).

11.

Iida O, Soga Y, Hirano K et al. Long-term outcomes and risk stratification of patency following nitinol stenting in the femoropopliteal segment: retrospective multicenter analysis. J. Endovasc. Ther. 18, 753–761 (2011).

12.

Iida O, Takahara M, Soga Y et al. Shared and differential factors influencing restenosis following endovascular therapy between TASC (Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus) II class A to C and D lesions in the femoropopliteal artery. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 7, 792–798 (2014).

13.

Fusaro M, Cassese S, Ndrepepa G et al. Paclitaxel-coated balloon or primary bare nitinol stent for revascularization of femoropopliteal artery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials versus uncoated balloon and an adjusted indirect comparison. Int. J. Cardiol. 168, 4002–4009 (2013).

•• A high-quality meta-analysis comparing drug-coated ballon with uncoated balloon.

14.

Hunink MG, Donaldson MC, Meyerovitz MF et al. Risks and benefits of femoropopliteal percutaneous balloon angioplasty. J. Vasc. Surg. 17, 183–192 (1993).

15.

Laxdal E, Eide GE, Wirsching J et al. Homocysteine levels, haemostatic risk factors and patency rates after endovascular treatment of the above-knee femoro-popliteal artery. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 28, 410–417 (2004).

16.

Abando A, Akopian G, Katz SG. Patient sex and success of peripheral percutaneous transluminal arterial angioplasty. Arch. Surg. 140, 757–761 (2005).

17.

Shammas NW, Shammas G, Bryan D, Rauba J, Dippel E, Jerin M. Predictors of target lesion revascularization in patients undergoing lower extremity percutaneous interventions. J. Invasive Cardiol. 21, 266–269 (2009).

18.

Božič-Mijovski M, Bedenčič M, Stegnar M et al. Nurr1 haplotypes are associated with femoropopliteal restenosis/re-occlusion after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 43, 337–338 (2012).

19.

Johnston PC, Vartanian SM, Runge SJ et al. Risk factors for clinical failure after stent graft treatment for femoropopliteal occlusive disease. J. Vasc. Surg. 56, 998–1006 (2012).

20.

Yin M, Jiang M, Huang X et al. Endovascular interventions for TransAtlantic InterSociety Consensus II C and D femoropopliteal lesions. Chin. Med. J. (Engl.) 126, 415–420 (2013).

21.

Soga Y, Iida O, Hirano K, Yokoi H, Nanto S, Nobuyoshi M. Mid-term clinical outcome and predictors of vessel patency after femoropopliteal stenting with self-expandable nitinol stent. J. Vasc. Surg. 52, 608–615 (2010).

22.

Tepe G, Laird J, Schneider P et al. Drug-coated balloon versus standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for the treatment of superficial femoral and popliteal peripheral artery disease: 12-month results from the IN.PACT SFA randomized trial. Circulation 131, 495–502 (2015).

23.

Rosenfield K, Jaff MR, White CJ et al. Trial of a paclitaxel-coated balloon for femoropopliteal artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 145–153 (2015).

24.

Mwipatayi BP, Hockings A, Hofmann M, Garbowski M, Sieunarine K. Balloon angioplasty compared with stenting for treatment of femoropopliteal occlusive disease: a meta-analysis. J. Vasc. Surg. 47, 461–469 (2008).

25.

Twine CP, Coulston J, Shandall A, McLain AD. Angioplasty versus stenting for superficial femoral artery lesions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2, CD006767 (2009).

26.

Laird JR, Schneider PA, Tepe G et al. Sustained durability of treatment effect using a drug-coated balloon for femoropopliteal lesions: 24-month results of IN.PACT SFA. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 66, 2329–2338 (2015).

•• The only randomized study with results at 2 years with drug-coated balloon.

27.

Fanelli F, Cannavale A, Boatta E et al. Lower limb multilevel treatment with drug-eluting balloons: 6-month results from the DEBELLUM randomized trial. J. Endovasc. Ther. 19, 571–580 (2012).

28.

Scheinert D, Karl-Ludwig S, Thomas Z et al. TCT-585 six month results of the BIOLUX P-I first in man study comparing a paclitaxel releasing balloon catheter versus an uncoated balloon catheter in femoropopliteal lesions. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 60, B170 (2012).

|