No abstract

Background: There is only limited information about the cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in Turkey. Aims: To evaluate bare-metal and drug-eluting stents used in the treatment of coronary artery disease from the perspective of the reimbursement institution with cost-effectiveness analysis. Study Design: Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: In our study, 329 patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease and treated with bare-metal or drug-eluting stents in the cardiology clinics of a public university hospital between January 1 and December 31, 2016 were investigated. Bare-metal and drug-eluting stents used in the treatment of coronary artery disease were evaluated retrospectively with cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the reimbursement institution. Results: The cost of treatment with a bare-metal stent was 2,131.41 Turkish Liras, and the cost of treatment with a drug-eluting stent was 3,546.14 Turkish Liras; the Quality Adjusted Life Years value of treatment with a bare-metal stent was 0.8371, and the Quality Adjusted Life Years value of treatment with a drug-eluting stent was 0.8924. All these data were analyzed by decision tree. As a result of decision tree analysis, the weighted cost of treatment with a bare-metal stent was 2,340.71 Turkish Liras and weighted Quality Adjusted Life Years value was 0.8332; and the weighted cost of treatment with drug-eluting stent was 3,970.90 Turkish Liras and the weighted Quality Adjusted Life Years value of the treatment with drug-eluting stent was 0.8911. With these values, the additional cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as 28,179.12 Turkish Liras per acquired Quality Adjusted Life Years. The additional cost-effectiveness ratio is in the first zone in the cost-effectiveness plane and below the very threshold of cost-effectiveness. Conclusion: In our study, it was concluded that drug-eluting stents are cost effective compared with bare-metal stents in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Considering the cost and effectiveness of the drug-eluting stent, it is thought that increasing reimbursement for this technology by the reimbursement agency would be beneficial for the service provider.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the open and arthroscopic rotator cuff tear treatment methods in terms of cost-effectiveness. Materials and Methods: This study includes a prospective method of a total of 104 patients, 52 with open surgery and 52 with arthroscopic surgery, in the treatment of rotator cuff tears. Cost calculations of the treatment methods were obtained from patient invoices. Oxford Shoulder Score and Short Form-36 Health Survey Questionnaire were used for effectiveness calculations. The costeffectiveness comparison was conducted using the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) assessment. The difference between costs of open and arthroscopic surgery was analyzed using the SPSS 23.0 package program, with Mann-Whitney U test. Results: The average cost per patient was 4,838.7 Turkish Liras (TL) (866.22 USD) in open surgery and 5,770.33 TL (1,033.00 USD) according to the exchange rate at the time of writing, in arthroscopic surgery. Oxford Shoulder Score was 21.15 in open surgery and 20.83 in arthroscopic surgery. Short Form-36 Health Survey Questionnaire score was 61.92 in open surgery and 63.17 in arthroscopic surgery. The ICER calculated according to the Oxford Shoulder Score was -2,912.37 TL (521,37 USD), while the ICER calculated according to the General Health Perception sub-scale of Short Form-36 was 745.57 TL (133,47 USD).In addition, statistical significant difference was found between the surgery, medication, medical and surgical materials, hospitalization and average cost of those treated with open surgery and those treated with arthroscopic surgery (p<0.05). Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference between the efficacy scores of the treatment groups. However, there was statistically significant difference between costs of the treatment groups.