The ARTS (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study): Background, goals and methods
- 1 January 1999
- journal article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Cardiovascular Interventions
- Vol. 2 (1) , 41-50
- https://doi.org/10.1080/acc.2.1.41.50
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rising costs of healthcare have forced policy makers to make choices, and new treatments are increasingly assessed in terms of the balance between additional costs and additional effects. The recent recognition that stenting has a major and long-lasting effect enhancing balloon PTCA procedure has made it imperative to compare in patients with multivessel disease the standard surgical procedure with multiple stenting in a large-scale multinational and multicenter approach (19 countries, 68 sites). METHODS: Selection and inclusion of patients is based on a consensus of the cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist on equal 'treatability' of patients by both techniques with analysis of clinical follow-up (event-free survival) on the short (30 days), medium (1 year), and long term (3 and 5 years) with analysis of cost-effectiveness and quality of life (EuroQol and SF-36). Of the entire trial, the primary null hypothesis which needs to be rejected is that there will be no difference in event-free survival or effectiveness (E), at 1 year and also that the direct and indirect costs (C) per event-free year are not different between surgery or stenting. For this to become significant with a power of 90% requires 1200 patients. Between April 97 and June 98, 1205 patients have been randomized with a monthly recruitment of 83 patients; the one year follow-up will thus be completed in June 1999. Expected costs, effects and cost-effectiveness ratio (CE ratio) for stents are: Stent: high-cost estimate, 2 vessel disease (C 3 $19,297, E 3 81%, CE ratio 3 $23,876); 3 vessel disease (C 3 $24,566, E 3 81%, CE ratio 3 $30,397) low-cost estimate, 2 vessel disease (C 3 $16,638, E 3 81%, CE ratio 3 $20,586); 3 vessel disease (C 3 $20,456, E 3 81%, CE ratio 3 $25,322) Compared with CABG (C 3 $21,350, E 3 88%, CE ratio 3 $24,348) CONCLUSION: Clinically, stenting is not expected to be more effective than CABG, but should be cost-effective in both the 2- and 3-vessel disease groups when using the lower-cost estimate and in the 2 vessel group when using the higher-cost assumptions. (Int J CardiovascKeywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Interventional cardiology in Europe 1994European Heart Journal, 1998
- Modeling Valuations for EuroQol Health StatesMedical Care, 1997
- A Comparison of Coronary-Artery Stenting with Angioplasty for Isolated Stenosis of the Proximal Left Anterior Descending Coronary ArteryNew England Journal of Medicine, 1997
- Quality of Life, Employment Status, and Anginal Symptoms After Coronary Angioplasty or Bypass SurgeryCirculation, 1996
- EuroQol: the current state of playHealth Policy, 1996
- Heparin-Coated Palmaz-Schatz Stents in Human Coronary ArteriesCirculation, 1996
- Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing coronary angioplasty with bypass surgeryThe Lancet, 1995
- The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of diseaseJournal of Health Economics, 1995
- A Randomized Trial Comparing Coronary Angioplasty with Coronary Bypass SurgeryNew England Journal of Medicine, 1994
- Comparison of preoperative, operative and postoperative variables in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients to severely symptomatic patients three years after coronary artery bypass grafting: Analysis of 423 patientsThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1985