Background: There is a scarcity of cost-effectiveness analyses in the national literature comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) with bare-metal stents (BMS), at late follow-up.

Background: Studies on the cost-effectiveness ratio of drugeluting stents (DES) are rare. This study aimed to evaluate the results and compare the cost (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio -ICER) per restenosis prevented between DES and bare-metal stents (BMS) using the propensity score. Methods: Two hundred and twenty consecutive patients were included in the study, 111 of whom were treated with DES and 109 with BMS. The propensity score was used to adjust the effect of the intervention by means of matching, stratification and weighting. Results: Most patients were male (67.7% vs. 66.9%; P = 0.53), with a median age of 65.9 years. Patients treated with DES had higher rates of diabetes (54% vs. 17.4%; P < 0.001), three-vessel disease (18.9% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.029) and poor ventricular function (54.1% vs. 22%; P < 0.0001). The diameter of stents was 2.76 ± 0.35 mm vs. 2.91 ± 0.47 mm (P = 0.006), and the sum of the lengths of stents was 37.6 ± 23 mm vs. 24.8 ± 15.8 mm (P < 0.0001). Restenosis was observed in 6.3% vs. 12.8% of the patients (P = 0.099) and in 4.1% vs. 9.8% of the lesions (P = 0.048).

Purpose -To evaluate retrospectively stent implantation (SI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) performed in 7 hospitals in Rio de

No abstract

No abstract