Abstract
(1.4 vs. 2.3%, p= 0.63) or MACE (4.3 vs. 10.5%, p= 0.07) in patients who received DES vs. BMS, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratiowas $163,058/QALY gained and $130,447/TVR and $52,599/MACE avoided. Conclusion: In this registry, DESwas not a cost-effective strategy in large coronary vessels (≥3.5 mm) compared with BMS in terms of QALY gained and adverse events avoided. doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2011.05.075
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
