A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention vs. surgery for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease in the drug-eluting stent era.

Aims: The suitability of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), for patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) remains a contentious topic. While the body of evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of these revascularization strategies is growing, there is limited evidence concerning their long-term cost-effectiveness. We aim to critically appraise the body of literature investigating the cost-effectiveness of CABG compared with PCI using stents, and to assess the quality of the economic evidence available. Methods and results: A systematic review was performed across six electronic databases; Medline, Embase, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the health technology assessment database, and the Cochrane Library. All studies comparing economic attractiveness of CABG vs. PCI using bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES) in balanced groups of patients were considered. Sixteen studies were included. These comprised studies of conventional CABG vs. BMS (n = 8), or DES (n = 4); off-pump CABG vs. BMS (n = 2), or DES (n = 1); and minimally invasive direct CABG vs. BMS (n = 2). The majority adopted a healthcare payer perspective (n = 14). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported across studies varied widely according to perspective and time horizon. Favourable lifetime ICERs were reported for CABG in three trials. For patients with left main coronary artery disease, however, DES was reported as the dominant (more effective and cost-saving) strategy in one study. Conclusion: Overall, CABG rather than PCI was the favoured cost-effective treatment for complex MVCAD in the long term. While the evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of DES compared with CABG is growing, there is a need for more evaluations adopting a societal perspective, and time horizons of a lifetime or 10 or more years.

Prolonged effectiveness of coronary artery bypass surgery versus drug-eluting stents in diabetics with multi-vessel disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with diabetes (DM) and multi-vessel disease (MVD) is uncertain due to limited evidence from few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of CABG versus PCI-DES in DM-MVD patients using an evidence-based approach. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted to compare the risk of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularisation, cerebrovascular events (CVE), and major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE). RESULTS: A total of 1,837 and 3,052 DM-MVD patients were pooled from four RCTs (FREEDOM, SYNTAX, VA CARDS, and CARDia) and five non-randomised studies. At mean follow-up of 3 years, CABG compared with PCI-DES was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and MI in RCTs. By contrast, no significant differences were observed in the mean 3.5-year risk of all-cause mortality and MI in non-randomised trials. However, the risk of repeat revascularisations following PCI-DES compared with CABG was 2.3 (95% CI=1.8-2.8) and 3.0 (2.3-4.2)-folds higher in RCTs and non-randomised trials, respectively. Accordingly, the risk of MACCE at 3 years following CABG compared with PCI-DES was lower in both RCTs and non-randomised trials [0.65 (: 0.55-0.77); and 0.77 (0.60-0.98), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our pooled results, we recommend CABG compared with PCI-DES for patients with DM-MVD. Although non-randomised trials suggest no additional survival-, MI-, and CVE- benefit from CABG over PCI-DES, these results should be interpreted with care.

Sustained function of genetically modified porcine lungs in an ex vivo model of pulmonary xenotransplantation.

BACKGROUND: Xenotransplantation could provide a solution to the donor shortage that is currently the major barrier to solid-organ transplantation. The ability to breed pigs with multiple genetic modifications provides a unique opportunity to explore the immunologic challenges of pulmonary xenotransplantation. METHODS: Explanted lungs from wild-type and 3 groups of genetically modified pigs were studied: (i) α1,3-galactosyltransferase gene knockout (GTKO); (ii) GTKO pigs expressing the human complementary regulatory proteins CD55 and CD59 (GTKO/CD55-59); and (iii) GTKO pigs expressing both CD55-59 and CD39 (GTKO/CD55-59/CD39). The physiologic, immunologic and histologic properties of porcine lungs were evaluated on an ex vivo rig after perfusion with human blood. RESULTS: Lungs from genetically modified pigs demonstrated stable pulmonary vascular resistance and better oxygenation of the perfusate, and survived longer than wild-type lungs. Physiologic function was inversely correlated with the degree of platelet sequestration into the xenograft. Despite superior physiologic profiles, lungs from genetically modified pigs still showed evidence of intravascular thrombosis and coagulopathy after perfusion with human blood. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to breed pigs with multiple genetic modifications, and to evaluate lung physiology and histology in real-time on an ex vivo rig, represent significant advances toward better understanding the challenges inherent to pulmonary xenotransplantation.

Safety and efficacy of extended-release bupivacaine local anaesthetic in open hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain relief remains a major problem in hernia surgery. SABER-Bupivacaine is an investigational extended-release formulation of bupivacaine in a resorbable matrix, which may provide up to 72 h of local pain relief. METHODS: A double-blinded, randomized controlled trial was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SABER-Bupivacaine. Consented patients (n = 124) undergoing open inguinal hernia repair at five sites in Australia and New Zealand were randomized to receive either 2.5 (330 mg) or 5.0 mL (660 mg) of SABER-Bupivacaine or SABER-Placebo administered to the surgical wound at the end of the procedure. Analgesic efficacy and safety was evaluated. RESULTS: SABER-Bupivacaine appeared safe with no difference in the incidence of side effects compared with SABER-Placebo. The 5.0 mL dose of SABER-Bupivacaine reduced the mean area under the curve of pain intensity on movement compared with SABER-Placebo (2.47 versus 3.60; P = 0.0033) and decreased the number of patients requiring supplemental opioids by 26% (although not statistically significant; P = 0.0909). Normal wound healing was reported throughout the trial and at 3- and 6-month follow-up in every treatment group. CONCLUSION: After open inguinal hernia repair, SABER-Bupivacaine administered at the surgical site was safe and provided pain relief, reduced the need for supplemental (oral and parenteral) analgesia and did not impair wound healing.