OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of contrast stress echocardiography on resource use in the treatment of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with suspected CAD underwent nuclear perfusion imaging and contrast echocardiography examination. Further treatment was planned after each test and a final treatment was recommended after reviewing the results of both examinations. Medical resources and productivity losses were then collected for a 3-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Diagnosis was possible in 96.6% of patients with nuclear perfusion imaging and 93.2% with contrast echocardiography, resulting in a cost per successful diagnosis of $637 (Can) and $476 (Can), respectively. For the majority of patients (74%), both tests provided the same result, but for 12 patients nuclear imaging suggested abnormal perfusion, whereas contrast echocardiography indicated normal function and for 2 patients it was the opposite situation. Per-patient costs for the total patient population decreased from $316 (Can) after nuclear perfusion imaging to $250 (Can) when results from both tests were known. Three-month follow-up societal costs were $441 (Can) per patient, with hospitalization contributing 58% of this total cost. CONCLUSION: Contrast echocardiography has a similar success rate to nuclear perfusion imaging in diagnosing CAD, but has a 28% lower cost and has the potential of additional cost savings through the elimination of further diagnostic tests.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of contrast stress echocardiography on resource use in the treatment of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with suspected CAD underwent nuclear perfusion imaging and contrast echocardiography examination. Further treatment was planned after each test and a final treatment was recommended after reviewing the results of both examinations. Medical resources and productivity losses were then collected for a 3-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Diagnosis was possible in 96.6% of patients with nuclear perfusion imaging and 93.2% with contrast echocardiography, resulting in a cost per successful diagnosis of $637 (Can) and $476 (Can), respectively. For the majority of patients (74%), both tests provided the same result, but for 12 patients nuclear imaging suggested abnormal perfusion, whereas contrast echocardiography indicated normal function and for 2 patients it was the opposite situation. Per-patient costs for the total patient population decreased from $316 (Can) after nuclear perfusion imaging to $250 (Can) when results from both tests were known. Three-month follow-up societal costs were $441 (Can) per patient, with hospitalization contributing 58% of this total cost. CONCLUSION: Contrast echocardiography has a similar success rate to nuclear perfusion imaging in diagnosing CAD, but has a 28% lower cost and has the potential of additional cost savings through the elimination of further diagnostic tests.