Trial-based cost-utility comparison of percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation and continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris

摘要

This study examined from a health service perspective whether percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation (PMR) plus standard medical management is cost-effective when compared with standard medical management alone in the treatment of refractory angina. This involved a cost-utility analysis using patient-specific data from a single-centre, randomised, controlled trial carried out in the United Kingdom. Of 73 patients diagnosed as having refractory angina and not suitable for conventional forms of revascularisation, 36 were randomised to PMR plus medical management and 37 to medical management alone. We collected costs to the health service of PMR and all secondary sector health care contacts and cardiac-related medication in the 12 months following randomisation. Patient utility, measured using the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire, was combined with 12-month survival data to generate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The mean 12-month cost per patient for PMR was ￡8,307, and that for medical management was ￡1,888, giving a cost difference of ￡6,410. The mean QALY difference favoured PMR at 0.126, giving an incremental cost per QALY of ￡50,873. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicates that the probability of PMR being cost-effective over the first 12 months is quite low. Whilst a longer period of follow-up might indicate continued benefit from PMR, which would make the intervention economically more attractive, PMR could not be considered cost-effective based on 1-year follow-up data.