Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 Jul 2;159(6):2230–2240.e15. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.06.040

Figure 4. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for CABG plus mitral-valve repair vs CABG alone according to time horizon.

Figure 4.

These curves indicate the probability (%) of CABG plus mitral-valve repair being cost-effective as compared with CABG alone using different time horizons. Each curve equals the obtained percentage of bootstrap iterations (1,000 in total) in which the repeated cost-effectiveness analysis showed that CABG plus mitral-valve repair was dominant (less costly and QALYs ≥ CABG alone) or had a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a cost($) per QALY gained value lower than the selected cost-effectiveness threshold on the X-axis. The probability of CABG alone being cost-effective equals 100% minus the depicted probability of CABG plus mitral-valve repair being cost-effective.