title: Cost effectiveness analysis of minimally invasive internal thoracic artery bypass versus percutaneous revascularisation for isolated lesions of the left anterior descending artery.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the cost effectiveness of percutaneous transluminal coronary artery stenting with minimally invasive internal thoracic artery bypass for isolated lesions of the left anterior descending artery.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cost effectiveness analysis.
  
  
  METHODS
  Embase, Medline, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Health Technology Assessment databases (1966-2005), and reference sources for utility values and economical variables.
  
  
  METHODS
  Decision analytical modelling and Markov simulation were used to model medium and long term costs, quality of life, and cost effectiveness after either intervention using data from referenced sources. Probabilistic sensitivity and alternative analyses were used to investigate the effect of uncertainty about the value of model variables and model structure.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Stenting was the dominant strategy in the first two years, being both more effective and less costly than bypass surgery. In the third year bypass surgery still remained more expensive but became marginally more effective. As the incremental cost effectiveness was 1,108,130.40 pounds sterling (1 682,146.00 euros; $2,179,194) per quality adjusted life year (QALY), the additional effectiveness could not be said to justify the additional cost at this stage. By five years, however, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio of 28,042.95 pounds sterling per QALY began to compare favourably with other interventions. At 10 years the additional effectiveness of 0.132 QALYs (range -0.166 to 0.430) probably justified the additional cost of 829.02 pounds sterling (range 205.56 pounds sterling to 1452.48 pounds sterling), with an incremental cost effectiveness of 6274.02 pounds sterling per QALY. Sensitivity and alternative analysis showed the results were sensitive to the time horizon and stent type.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Minimally invasive left internal thoracic artery bypass may be a more cost effective medium and long term alternative to percutaneous transluminal coronary artery stenting.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London W2 1NY.
authors.forename: Christopher
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Rao
authors.forename: Omer
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Aziz
authors.forename: Sukhmeet Singh
authors.initials: SS
authors.lastname: Panesar
authors.forename: Catherine
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Jones
authors.forename: Stephen
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Morris
authors.forename: Ara
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Darzi
authors.forename: Thanos
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Athanasiou
mesh_terms: D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D001026:Coronary Artery Bypass / Q000191:economics*; D003324:Coronary Artery Disease / Q000191:economics / Q000601:surgery*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007387:Internal Mammary-Coronary Artery Anastomosis / Q000191:economics; D008297:Male; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / Q000191:economics*; D009204:Myocardial Revascularization / Q000191:economics; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012008:Recurrence; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D015607:Stents / Q000191:economics*; D016896:Treatment Outcome