Table 3 Associations between incremental revascularizations and covariates – DES vs BMSa
Bivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|
∆ Repeat revascularization d | |||
Covariates | β | N | se |
120 | |||
Population | |||
Age | 70 | ||
Age >75 | NA | 0 | NA |
Age 65-75 | −0.018 | 8 | 0.05 |
Age < 65 | ref | 62 | |
Complex lesion (yes vs. no) | 0.029* | 56 | 0.007 |
Complex vessel (yes vs. no) | 0.042* | 27 | 0.012 |
Multi vessel disease (yes vs. no) | 0.019* | 12 | 0.007 |
Diabetes (yes vs. no) | 0.02* | 64 | 0.007 |
Post MI (yes vs. no) | 0.007 | 25 | 0.011 |
Elective (yes vs. no) | NA | 0 | NA |
High risk (yes vs. no) | NA | 0 | NA |
Intervention | |||
Type DES | 120 | ||
Sirolimus eluting stent | 0.102* | 21 | 0.014 |
Paclitaxel eluting stent | 0.063* | 56 | 0.014 |
Zotarolimus eluting stent | NA | 0 | NA |
Drug eluting stent in general | ref | 43 | |
Study characteristics | |||
Country | 120 | ||
Canada | −0.099 | 42 | 0.056 |
Sweden | −0.036 | 27 | 0.068 |
Brazil | −0.08 | 5 | 0.072 |
Finland | −0.04 | 1 | 0.072 |
Belgium | −0.07 | 39 | 0.059 |
Italy | ref | 10 | |
Study year | 0.01 | 120 | 0.008 |
Horizon >1 year (yes vs. no) | −0.006 | 120 | 0.021 |
Horizon (months) b | <0.001 | ||
Type of study (CUA vs. CEA) | NA | NA | NA |
Model | 120 | ||
Markov model | NA | 0 | NA |
Discrete event simulation model | NA | 0 | NA |
Decision tree | NA | 120 | NA |
Perspective | 120 | ||
Health care provider perspective | 0.004 | 6 | 0.017 |
Health care sector perspective | 0.04 | 31 | 0.05 |
Non-public perspective | NA | 0 | NA |
Health care payer perspective | ref | 83 | |
Funding | 73 | ||
No | 0.034 | 27 | 0.045 |
Yes | 46 | ||
Both Industry and No industry | NA | 0 | NA |
Industry | 0.102* | 37 | 0.046 |
No industry | ref | 9 | |
Discounting (yes vs. no)c | −0.084* | 11 | 0.026 |
Input parameters | |||
Number of stents used during the procedure | 0.033* | 111 | 0.01 |
Price difference between stents | NA | NA | NA |
Price of BMS stent | NA | NA | NA |
Price of DES stent | NA | NA | NA |
Costs of BMS procedure (incl. stents) | NA | NA | NA |
Costs of DES procedure (incl. stents) | NA | NA | NA |
Difference in procedure costs | NA | NA | NA |
Probability of restenosis BMS | 0.521* | 112 | 0.041 |
Probability of restenosis DES | 0.436* | 112 | 0.127 |
Relative risk reduction repeat revascularization | 0.132* | 112 | 0.018 |
Disutility of undergoing a CABG | NA | NA | NA |
Disutility of undergoing a PCI | NA | NA | NA |
Disutility of experiencing a MI | NA | NA | NA |
Disutility for a patient with angina symptoms | NA | NA | NA |
Quality of life of a patient with angina symptoms | NA | NA | NA |
Quality of life of a patient after revascularization (recovered) | NA | NA | NA |
Quality of life of a patient suffering from restenosis | NA | NA | NA |
Assumptions | |||
Difference in clopidogrel (medication) usage (yes vs. no) | 0.001 | 45 | 0.015 |
Wait time for revascularization included (yes vs. no) | −0.051 | 77 | 0.048 |
Repeat revascularization is based on angiographic follow-up data (yes vs. no) | 0.082* | 82 | 0.01 |
DES and BMS are not mixed up during a procedure | −0.061 | 120 | 0.047 |
Repeat interventions that occur during time horizon are the result of restenosis | NA | 120 | NA |
There do not exist differences in mortality, thrombosis or MI between DES and BMS | 0.039 | 120 | 0.039 |
The type of repeat revascularization is the same for the DES and BMS treatment groups | −0.071 | 120 | 0.044 |
There does not exist a difference in survival between DES and BMS | 0.015 | 120 | 0.033 |
There does not exist a difference in thrombosis between DES and BMS | 0.039 | 120 | 0.039 |
There does not exist a difference in MI between DES and BMS | 0.046 | 120 | 0.031 |
Quality of studies (Philips et al. 2006) [7] | |||
Structure (%) | −0.145 | 120 | 0.099 |
Data (%) | −0.167* | 120 | 0.066 |
Consistency (%) | −0.153 | 120 | 0.081 |
Total (%) | −0.250* | 120 | 0.087 |