Skip to main content

Table 1 Description economic evaluations

From: Using meta-regression analyses in addition to conventional systematic review methods to examine the variation in cost-effectiveness results – a case study

Study

Year

Country

# Analyses

Horizon (months)

Model

Fundingb

Subgroups

Comparison

Price per stent (2012 €)

Price difference DES vs BMS (2012 €)

# Stents per procedure

Quality (%)a

Ekman et al. [15]

2004

Sweden

66

12,24

DT

Yes

High risk, diabetes, type of lesion, type of vessel

BMS vs

NS

 

1.1-1.8

41

 PES

NS

693-1271

Hill et al. [22]

2004

UK

36

12-60

STM

No

High risk, # vessels

BMS vs

679

 

1.3,2.4

77

 DES

1607

929

Tarricone et al. [19]

2004

Italy

10

12

DT

Yes

# vessels, diabetes, type of lesion, type of vessel

BMS vs

NS

 

1.2 – 2.6

46

 SES

NS

0

Bowen et al. [21]

2005

Canada

50

12

DT

No

Post MI, diabetes, type of lesion

BMS vs

531

 

1.23–2.26

61

 DES

1681

1150

Mittmann et al. [13]

2005

Canada

8

12

DT

NS

 

BMS vs

522

 

1.5

50

 SES

2062

1540

 PES

2062

1540

Shrive et al. [17]

2005

Canada

11

LT

STM

Yes

Diabetes, age

BMS vs

430

 

1.05–1.75

56

 SES

1246-3114

816-2685

Mahieu et al. [12]

2006

Belgium

31

12

DT

NS

Diabetes, type of lesion, type of vessel

BMS vs

NS

 

1

32

 SES

NS

731-1306

 PES

NS

731-1306

Hill et al. [2]

2007

UK

172

12

STM

No

High risk, elective

BMS vs

485

 

1-2

80

 SES

1700-1774

1215-1289

 PES

1621-1696

1136-1211

Kuukasjarvi et al. [23]

2007

Finland

2

24

DT

No

 

BMS vs

NS

 

NS

33

 DES

NS

NS

Neyt et al. [8]

2007

Belgium

59

12

DT

NS

Diabetes, # vessels, type of lesion

BMS vs

553-1106

 

1.09–1.97

72

 DES

553-1659

0-1106

Polanczyk et al. [18]

2007

Brazil

4

12, LT

STM

Yes

 

BMS vs

831-1390

 

1.2

56

 SES

3169

1779, 2337

Bischof et al. [14]

2009

USA

4

36

STM

No

 

BMS vs

NS

NS

NS

76

 SES

NS

 PES

NS

Goeree et al.[24]

2009

Canada

45

24

DT

No

Diabetes, type of lesion, type of vessel

BMS vs

470

 

1.1–2.37

52

 DES

1486

391-1016

Ferreira et al. [16]

2010

Brazil

1

26

DT

No

 

BMS vs

1883

 

NS

36

 PES

5272

3390

Jahn et al. [10, 11]

2010

Austria

6

84

DES

No

Diabetes, type of lesion

BMS vs

NS

 

1.24

47

 DES

NS

NS

Remak et al. [20]

2010

UK

3

48

STM

Yes

 

BMS vs

433

 

1.11

62

 ZES

1175

742

1.12-1.4

  1. a Philips checklist 2006: scale 0-100 %
  2. b Yes: manufacturer; No: funded by government or not funded
  3. DES discrete event simulation, DT decision tree, LT life time, vs versus, MI myocardial infarction, NS not stated, STM state-transition model, # vessels number of vessels treated