The ARTS study (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study).

P. W. Serruys, F. Unger, B. A. van Hout, M. J. van den Brand, L. A. van Herwerden, G. A. van Es, J. J. Bonnier, R. Simon, J. Cremer, A. Colombo, C. Santoli, M. Vandormael, P. R. Marshall, O. Madonna, B. G. Firth, A. Breeman, M. A. Morel, P. G. Hugenholtz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The rising costs of health care 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 multicentre approach (19 countries, 68 sites). 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 day), medium (1 year), and long-term (3 and 5 year) 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% one needs 1200 patients. Between April 97 and June 98, 1205 patients have been randomized with a monthly recruitment of 83 patients. Expected costs, effects and cost-effectiveness ratio (CE ratio) are: Stent high costs 2 VDStent high costs 3 VDStent low costs 2 VDStent low costs 3 VDCABG costs (C)$19.297$24.566$16.638$20.456$21.350 effects (E)81%81%81%81%88% CE ratio$23.876$30.397$20.586$25.322$24.348 Clinically, stenting is not expected to be more effective than CABG, but should be cost effective in both the 2- and 3-VD group when using the lower cost estimate and in the 2 VD group when using the higher cost assumptions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)209-219
Number of pages11
JournalSeminars in interventional cardiology : SIIC
Volume4
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - Dec 1999

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The ARTS study (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study).'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Serruys, P. W., Unger, F., van Hout, B. A., van den Brand, M. J., van Herwerden, L. A., van Es, G. A., Bonnier, J. J., Simon, R., Cremer, J., Colombo, A., Santoli, C., Vandormael, M., Marshall, P. R., Madonna, O., Firth, B. G., Breeman, A., Morel, M. A., & Hugenholtz, P. G. (1999). The ARTS study (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study). Seminars in interventional cardiology : SIIC, 4(4), 209-219.