Dave Fornell, DAIC Editor

Dave Fornell, Editor DAIC

Blog | Dave Fornell, DAIC Editor | July 09, 2014

Drawing the Line When Evaluating Cost vs. Benefit

A big fly in the ointment for widespread adoption of many new technologies is cost. In today’s cost-conscience environment of healthcare reform, there needs to be a clear, quantifiable return of investment (ROI). This is especially true for new medical technologies that are competing with a long-established standard of care, where the new technology must show either a cost-benefit over the older technology, or must show a big improvement in patient outcomes to justify the added expense. With a device that shows only an incremental increase in benefit, say a 1-2 percent or less improvement over existing technology, the question may become one of economics rather than device effectiveness.

This is not only a question for physicians, as it applies to vendors developing these products as well. One of the biggest examples of this is the case of drug-eluting stents. During the last decade, key stent vendors were in an arms race to build a better device and capture a large share of the then lucrative coronary stent market. This included extremely expensive, blockbuster clinical trials, massive R&D efforts, and lawsuits and countersuits to try to slow down the competition. However, this came to a halt with the SPIRIT IV trial results in 2010, which proved the Abbott Xience stent was the best in the market for patient outcomes and beat out the long-time market leader, the Boston Scientific Taxus stent.  

However, the victory only just edged out Taxus. Stent thrombosis improvements were measured in fractions of less than 1 percent, and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization improvements were less than a 2.6 percentage-point absolute reduction. The data proving that Abbott was the top performer by only a small margin came at a staggering cost of nearly a billion dollars and several years of data collection. Few vendors are willing to shell out that sort of cash today to conduct similar sized trials that will be powered with enough patients to show only small incremental improvements.  

In reality, all the drug-eluting stents on the U.S. market today are good devices and all have similar patient outcomes. This has led to stents becoming commodity items, where lower pricing can often trump slightly better trial data. This is why the Xience stent does not master the entire stent market and why competitors remain in the game. 

I shared some additional thoughts on things to consider when looking at new devices and software in the article The Basics for Evaluating New Technology in the July-August issue of DAIC.

Related Content

medicare bundled cardiac payments, CMS cardiology payments
Feature | Business| October 24, 2016 | By John W. Meyer, MPH, FACHE
(Editor’s note: This is the second part of a two-part series on the proposed Medicare five-year demonstration for
bioresorbable stents, bioabsorbable stents, visualizing the Absorb BVS, dissolving stent, disappearing stent on IVUS and OCT

A comparison of how the Abbott Absorb BVS appears with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) on the left, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the right. The stent is difficult to visualize and sizing is critical, so both modalities can help in bioresorbable stent measurements and to confirm stent apposition. Left image from the Volcano IVUS system and the right image from St. Jude Medical's OCT system


Feature | Stents Bioresorbable| October 20, 2016 | Dave Fornell
There has been a lot of interest in the interventional community regarding the Abbott Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular S
Avinger, Pantheris atherectomy catheter, OCT, Lumivascular technology, expanded FDA indication, diagnostic imaging device
News | Atherectomy Devices| October 20, 2016
Avinger Inc. recently announced that the company has received expanded indications from the U.S. Food and Drug...
recall, alligator retrieval device, X-Celerator hydrophilic guidewire, UltraFlow flow directed micro catheters, Marathon flow directed micro catheters
News | Cath Lab| October 18, 2016
Medtronic plc announced last week that it has notified customers of a voluntary recall of certain lots of its Pipeline...
Inventory management, Cardinal, RFID inventory tracking, cath lab inventory
Sponsored Content | Whitepapers | Inventory Management| October 18, 2016
As healthcare moves into the era of bundled payments, providers need to be especially focused on ensuring delivery of
angioseal, angio-seal, terumo, St. Jude, vascular closure devices
News | Vascular Closure Devices| October 18, 2016
October 18, 2016 — Abbott and St. Jude Medical Inc.
3-D bioprinting, 3-D printing, printed organs, 3D bioprinting

3-D printed vessel made from living cells implanted in an animal to test feasibility of using such structures clinically. Blood vessels are a stepping stone to the creation of more complex 3-D printed organs made from biomaterials. Image from the South Carolina Project for Organ Biofabrication.


Feature | 3-D Printing| October 13, 2016 | Dave Fornell
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) changed its rules concerning custom medical devices Oct.
Shockwave lithoplasty system, VIVA 16, Vascular Interventioanl Advances, VIA Physicians, late-breaking endovascular clinical trial results
News | Cath Lab| October 12, 2016
VIVA (Vascular Interventional Advances) Physicians announced a number of highly anticipated late-breaking clinical...
Terumo Finecross, guidewires, guide wires, guidewires 101, basics of guidewire technology

An illustration of Terumo's Finecross guidewire crossing a tight lesion. 

Feature | Guidewires| October 12, 2016 | Dave Fornell
While guidewires are a key tool used by
Overlay Init