Coronary artery disease (CAD) has significant social and economic implications. It is necessary to create tools to identify the most cost-effectiveness treatments, which can assist clinicians in their therapeutic decisions so that the maximum possible benefit is reached with the lowest possible cost. Effectiveness must be measured by final treatment goals in which the most effective interventions are those with the lowest costs. This study is aimed to systematically review and compare the studies conducted on the cost-effectiveness of the three coronary artery disease treatment strategies (medical treatment, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft). In this systematic review, the databases NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Embase, MEDLINE, Science Direct, and Scopus were searched for studies on the cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to medical therapy (MT) in patients with coronary artery disease between 1 January 2004 to 30 September 2018. The quality appraisal of the included studies was examined using the Consolidated Health Economics Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Out of 186 unique retrievals, 8 studies were included. The results showed that the all studies clearly stated the time horizon of the study and included direct medical costs in their analysis. In addition, in most of the studies, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were the main outcome used for measuring the effectiveness. The studies reported various ranges of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); accordingly, the highest ratio was observed in the USA ($212,800) for PCI v MT and the lowest ratio was observed in Brazil ($4403) for CABG v MT. Although the results of the studies were different in terms of a number of aspects, such as the viewpoint of the study, the study horizons, and the costs of expenditure items, they reached similar results. Based on the result of the present study, it seems that each three treatment strategies for CAD yielded improvements in QALY.

Department of Health Economics School of Health Management and Information Sciences Iran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran

Health Management and Economics Research Center Iran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran

Tehran Heart Center Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran

See more in PubMed

Circulation. 2007 Mar 6;115(9):1082-9 PubMed

BMJ. 2007 Mar 24;334(7594):624 PubMed

Lancet. 1994 Oct 1;344(8927):927-30 PubMed

Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Mar;97(10):e9958 PubMed

Heart Fail Rev. 2018 Sep;23(5):693-700 PubMed

Iran J Cancer Prev. 2015 Oct;8(5):e4061 PubMed

J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990 Nov;16(5):1071-8 PubMed

Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014 Jun 08;3(2):63-9 PubMed

J Med Assoc Thai. 2014 May;97 Suppl 5:S59-64 PubMed

Curr Probl Cardiol. 2010 Feb;35(2):72-115 PubMed

Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(11):919-29 PubMed

Am J Cardiol. 2000 Oct 1;86(7):747-52 PubMed

Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008 Sep;1(1):12-20 PubMed

Lancet. 2009 Apr 4;373(9670):1190-7 PubMed

N Engl J Med. 2001 Apr 12;344(15):1117-24 PubMed

PLoS One. 2014 Jun 04;9(6):e98371 PubMed

QJM. 2007 May;100(5):277-89 PubMed

Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2013 Mar 25;11(1):6 PubMed

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002 Winter;18(1):112-9 PubMed

Value Health. 2014 Nov;17(7):A441-2 PubMed

Circulation. 2012 Sep 11;126(11 Suppl 1):S145-50 PubMed

Circulation. 2009 Dec 22;120(25):2550-8 PubMed

N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 12;356(15):1503-16 PubMed

Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018 Nov 3;16:55 PubMed

Eur Heart J. 2004 Dec;25(24):2195-203 PubMed