E Eikefjord1, J E Askildsen, J Rørvik. 1. Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. eli.eikefjord@hib.no
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is important to compare the cost and effectiveness of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and intravenous urography (IVU) to determine the most cost-effective alternative for the initial investigation of acute ureterolithiasis. PURPOSE: To analyze the task-specific variable costs combined with the diagnostic effect of MDCT and IVU for patients with acute flank pain, and to determine which is most cost effective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 119 patients with acute flank pain suggestive of stone disease (ureterolithiasis) were examined by both MDCT and IVU. Variable costs related to medical equipment, consumption material, equipment control, and personnel were calculated. The diagnostic effect was assessed. RESULTS: The variable costs of MDCT versus IVU were EUR 32 and EUR 117, respectively. This significant difference was mainly due to savings in examination time, higher annual examination frequency, lower material costs, and no use of contrast media. As for diagnostic effect, MDCT proved considerably more accurate in the diagnosis of stone disease than IVU and markedly more accurate concerning differential diagnoses. CONCLUSION: MDCT had lower differential costs and a higher capacity to determine correctly stone disease and differential diagnoses, as compared to IVU, in patients with acute flank pain. Consequently, MDCT is a dominant alternative to IVU when evaluated exclusively from a cost-effective perspective.
BACKGROUND: It is important to compare the cost and effectiveness of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and intravenous urography (IVU) to determine the most cost-effective alternative for the initial investigation of acute ureterolithiasis. PURPOSE: To analyze the task-specific variable costs combined with the diagnostic effect of MDCT and IVU for patients with acute flank pain, and to determine which is most cost effective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 119 patients with acute flank pain suggestive of stone disease (ureterolithiasis) were examined by both MDCT and IVU. Variable costs related to medical equipment, consumption material, equipment control, and personnel were calculated. The diagnostic effect was assessed. RESULTS: The variable costs of MDCT versus IVU were EUR 32 and EUR 117, respectively. This significant difference was mainly due to savings in examination time, higher annual examination frequency, lower material costs, and no use of contrast media. As for diagnostic effect, MDCT proved considerably more accurate in the diagnosis of stone disease than IVU and markedly more accurate concerning differential diagnoses. CONCLUSION: MDCT had lower differential costs and a higher capacity to determine correctly stone disease and differential diagnoses, as compared to IVU, in patients with acute flank pain. Consequently, MDCT is a dominant alternative to IVU when evaluated exclusively from a cost-effective perspective.