Cost-Effectiveness of a Novel Self-Apposing Stent in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) in France

*Lieven Annemans,1 Johanne Silvain,2 Gilles Montalescot2,3

1. I-CHER Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research, Ghent University,  Department of Public Health, Gent, Belgium
2. Department of Cardiology, CHU La Pitié-Salpêtrière (AP-HP), Paris, France; ACTION study group
3. University of Paris, Paris, France
*Correspondence to

Disclosure: L.A. is a consultant to STENTYS. J.S. and G.M. have received a research grant to the institution from STENTYS.
Received: 18.11.14 Accepted: 17.12.14
Citation: EMJ Cardiol. 2015;3[1]:22-29.


The objective was to calculate the cost-effectiveness profile of STENTYS compared to conventional  bare and drug-eluting stents (DES). Stents are widely used in the treatment of patients with ST-segment  elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, several reports point to the prevailing risk of coronary events such as recurrent myocardial infarction, some of which are related to in-stent thrombosis, possibly explained by poorly apposed stents. 1-year results of the self-apposing stent, STENTYS, are promising regarding the incidence of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular (CV) events. A model was developed to simulate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 1-5 years. In the first 12 months, a decision tree framework was used to define different CV outcomes for STEMI patients receiving a stent. After 12 months, outcomes were categorised in a Markov stage of the model as myocardial infarction (MI), other CV events, revascularisation, and death. Cost of comparative treatments and follow-up in relation to CV events were calculated from the French health insurance perspective. The results indicated, in the base case, over a time horizon of 5 years, that STENTYS bare metal stent (BMS) is dominant (less costly and more QALYs) against conventional DES. The STENTYS DES is dominant compared with conventional DES and very cost-effective versus BMS. The results were robust for different variations in the input  variables. This first analysis of the cost-effectiveness of STENTYS showed that it is dominant or very costeffective as compared to conventional stents. Further comparative research and longer follow-up data  are needed to expand on these results.

Download (PDF, 116KB)

Comments are closed.