Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with distal bifurcation left main stem lesions requiring intervention, the European Bifurcation Club Left Main Coronary Stent Study trial found a non-significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACEs, composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation) favouring the stepwise provisional strategy, compared with the systematic dual stenting. AIMS: To estimate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of stepwise provisional versus systematic dual stenting strategies. METHODS: Costs in France and the UK, and MACE were calculated in both groups to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Uncertainty was explored by probabilistic bootstrapping. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the healthcare provider with a time horizon of 1 year. RESULTS: The cost difference between the two groups was €-755 (€5700 in the stepwise provisional group and €6455 in the systematic dual stenting group, p value<0.01) in France and €-647 (€6728 and €7375, respectively, p value=0.08) in the UK. The point estimates for the ICERs found that stepwise provisional strategy was cost saving and improved outcomes with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirming dominance with an 80% probability. CONCLUSION: The stepwise provisional strategy at 1 year is dominant compared with the systematic dual stenting strategy on both economic and clinical outcomes.