Cost-effectiveness analysis of short-duration dual antiplatelet therapy with newer drug-eluting stent platforms versus longer-duration dual antiplatelet therapy with a second-generation drug-eluting stent in elective percutaneous coronary intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of newer drug-eluting stents (DES) such as biodegradable-polymer or polymer-free stents with shorter dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration is unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatment with newer DES that may allow for shorter DAPT duration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with newer DES platforms followed by 1 or 3 months of DAPT compared with standard second-generation DES followed by 6 or 12 months of DAPT in patients with stable coronary disease. A Markov model simulated distinct health states over a lifetime. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. A high-risk bleeding scenario was also evaluated. RESULTS: Among patients with typical bleeding risk, second-generation DES and 6 months of DAPT was less expensive and resulted in marginally higher quality-adjusted life years compared with other strategies. A newer DES platform and 3 months of DAPT was preferred when the risk of fatal bleeding was two times greater than baseline, or when bleeding increased long-term mortality by a factor of 1.5. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, second-generation DES and 6 months of DAPT was preferred in 58% of iterations, whereas in a high-risk bleeding patient scenario, a newer DES and 3 months of DAPT was preferred in 52% of iterations. CONCLUSION: A DES that allows 3 months of DAPT without increasing stent-related events is likely to be cost-effective among patients at elevated risk of bleeding, but not in patients with average bleeding risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".