Cost-effectiveness of bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery grafts at ten years

Little, Matthew, Gray, Alastair M., Altman, Douglas G., Benedetto, Umberto, Flather, Marcus, Gerry, Stephen, Lees, Belinda, Murphy, Jacqueline, Gaudino, Mario, Taggart, David P. and , Arterial Revascularization Trial investigators (2022) Cost-effectiveness of bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery grafts at ten years. European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes, 8 (3). 324–332. ISSN 2058-5225

PDF (Accepted_Manuscript) - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (2MB) | Preview


Objectives: Using bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITA) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been suggested to improve survival compared to CABG using single internal thoracic arteries (SITA) for patients with advanced coronary artery disease. We used data from the Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART) to assess long-term cost-effectiveness of BITA grafting compared to SITA grafting from an English health system perspective. Methods: Resource use, healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed across 10-years of follow-up from an intention-to-treat perspective. Missing data were addressed using multiple imputation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated with uncertainty characterised using non-parametric bootstrapping. Results were extrapolated beyond 10 years using Gompertz functions for survival and linear models for total cost and utility. Results: Total mean costs at 10 years follow-up were £17,594 in the BITA arm and £16,462 in the SITA arm (mean difference £1,133 95% CI £239 to £2,026, p = 0.015). Total mean QALYs at 10 years were 6.54 in the BITA are and 6.57 in the SITA arm (adjusted mean difference -0.01 95% CI -0.2 to 0.1, p = 0.883). At 10 years BITA grafting had a 33% probability of being cost-effective compared to SITA, assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000. Lifetime extrapolation increased the probability of BITA being cost-effective to 51%. Conclusions: BITA grafting has significantly higher costs but similar quality-adjusted survival at 10 years compared to SITA grafting. Extrapolation suggests this could change over lifetime.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: Funding: This work was supported by the British Heart Foundation, London (SP/03/001), the UK Medical Research Council, London (G0200390), and the National Institute of Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, Southampton (09/800/29). A.M.G. is partly funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.
Faculty \ School: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School
Related URLs:
Depositing User: LivePure Connector
Date Deposited: 03 Feb 2021 01:00
Last Modified: 05 May 2022 15:31
DOI: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab004

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item