Background: There is increasing evidence that use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with angiography guidance alone. However, concern regarding the cost-effectiveness of IVUS has limited use of this technology worldwide. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IVUS-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation.
Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of IVUS to angiography guidance from the Australian healthcare system perspective. Procedure-related morbidity and mortality were estimated from the literature. Costs were obtained from Australian sources. The population of interest was all-comers undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stent. Outcomes of interest included costs, life-expectancy, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups.
Results: In the base case, IVUS guidance was cost-effective compared with angiography guidance alone. With 5% annual discounting, IVUS was associated with increased lifetime costs of Australian dollars (AUD) $823 (USD $597) per person and benefits of 0.04 life years and 0.05 QALYs compared with angiography, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AUD $17 539 (USD $12 730) per QALY gained. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses, with IVUS being cost-effective in 99% of 10 000 Monte Carlo iterations assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD $50 000 per QALY gained. In a worst-case scenario analysis, IVUS remained the cost-effective option, with an ICER of AUD $36 651 (USD $26 601) per QALY gained. Exploratory subgroup analysis revealed that cost-effectiveness may be greatest among patients with left main and complex coronary lesions.
Conclusions: Use of IVUS guidance during PCI is likely to be cost-effective compared with angiography guidance alone among patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation.
Keywords: angiography; drug-eluting stents; morbidity; percutaneous coronary intervention; technology.