Intracoronary stenting: developments since the NICE report
Open Access
- 1 March 2002
- Vol. 87 (3) , 187-190
- https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.87.3.187
Abstract
Stenting has become standard treatment for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Clinical impressions continue to support this as a user friendly, safe, and efficacious technology The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) was established in the light of a perceived need for a regulatory body to review the efficacy of existing and new treatments and to appraise technological developments. It was seen as being important for the following reasons: (1) there was and is slow uptake, even of innovations of perceived benefit; (2) judgements on the interpretation or significance of the evidence can be different in different parts of the country, resulting in variations in the access for patients to the new treatments with the widespread perception of inequity; (3) wasteful use of resources can occur when treatments are used outside the range in which they are clinically cost effective, at the expense of alternative uses of those resources which could give greater benefits to patients. The key functions of NICE are technology appraisal of both new and existing interventions, in order to assess clinical benefit and cost effectiveness. Guidelines are issued and information disseminated. It is expected that progress will be audited. Advocates suggest that the good things about NICE include the fact that it was badly needed, and that it is transparent, has authority, and it has been able to rationalise the often difficult debate between clinicians and purchasers. It produces evidence based reports. Its detractors would claim it takes evidence from experts who had “something to sell”, and that it tends to depend too heavily on randomised clinical trials, which select populations, rather than to also use registry data. Recommendations come with no money attached. Overall, however, the establishment and work of NICE has been generally welcomed. For better or worse NICE is seen in Europe as …Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibition with Coronary Stenting for Acute Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 2001
- Comparison of Two Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors, Tirofiban and Abciximab, for the Prevention of Ischemic Events with Percutaneous Coronary RevascularizationNew England Journal of Medicine, 2001
- Comparison of Coronary-Artery Bypass Surgery and Stenting for the Treatment of Multivessel DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 2001
- Lack of Neointimal Proliferation After Implantation of Sirolimus-Coated Stents in Human Coronary ArteriesCirculation, 2001
- A Randomized Trial Comparing Stenting With Balloon Angioplasty in Small Vessels in Patients With Symptomatic Coronary Artery DiseaseCirculation, 2000
- Randomized comparison of coronary stenting with optimal balloon angioplasty for treatment of lesions in small coronary arteriesPublished by Oxford University Press (OUP) ,2000
- Stent magic! The genie has escaped from the bottleHeart, 2000
- Stenting of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenoses: Immediate and Late OutcomesJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1998
- Comparison of Primary Coronary Angioplasty and Intravenous Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial InfarctionJAMA, 1997
- Contemporary Percutaneous Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Coronary StenosesCirculation, 1997