Literature DB >> 20177094

Cost-effectiveness of coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion SPECT for evaluation of patients with chest pain and no known coronary artery disease.

James K Min1, Amanda Gilmore, Matthew J Budoff, Daniel S Berman, Ken O'Day.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for individuals with chest pain without known coronary artery disease (CAD) in the Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography-eligible population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analysis was performed in which the following were compared: coronary computed tomographic (CT) angiography followed by invasive coronary angiography for positive or equivocal findings (coronary CT angiography only), coronary CT angiography followed by invasive coronary angiography for positive findings and myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) for equivocal findings (coronary CT angiography first), myocardial perfusion SPECT followed by invasive coronary angiography for positive/equivocal findings (myocardial perfusion SPECT only), myocardial perfusion SPECT followed by invasive coronary angiography for positive findings and coronary CT angiography for equivocal findings (myocardial perfusion SPECT first), and invasive coronary angiography. Analyses were conducted from the payer perspective for a near-term diagnostic period and a long-term lifetime period. The base case was a 55-year-old man with 30% risk of obstructive CAD.
RESULTS: By using the base case for near-term cost per correct diagnosis, a coronary CT angiography-first strategy was the least expensive, followed by coronary CT angiography only (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $17516). For long-term cost-effectiveness, a coronary CT angiography-only strategy demonstrated a favorable ICER of $20429 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) relative to the least expensive coronary CT angiography-first strategy. Both myocardial perfusion SPECT-only and myocardial perfusion SPECT-first strategies were more costly and less effective than either coronary CT angiographic strategy. Long-term results were sensitive to coronary CT angiographic sensitivity, myocardial perfusion SPECT sensitivity, and CAD prevalence. Coronary CT angiography-first and coronary CT angiography-only strategies remained dominant up to a baseline coronary CT angiography test cost of $1100 and 80% CAD prevalence.
CONCLUSION: With a $20000 threshold level for cost per correct diagnosis and $50000 per QALY, a coronary CT angiography-only approach is the most cost-effective diagnostic strategy for evaluation of patients who have stable chest pain without known CAD with intermediate CAD prevalence. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.09090349/-/DC1. (c) RSNA, 2010

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20177094     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09090349

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  23 in total

Review 1.  Assessment of coronary heart disease by CT angiography: current and evolving applications.

Authors:  Abhishek Sharma; Armin Arbab-Zadeh
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  Multi-detector computed tomography coronary angiography: the incidental lung findings.

Authors:  Khaled Alfakih; Mathew Budoff
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of stress myocardial perfusion MRI and SPECT in patients with suspected coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Kunihiro Iwata; Katsuhiko Ogasawara
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2012-07-18

4.  SPECT vs CT: CT is not the first line test for the diagnosis and prognosis of stable coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Zachary J Trzaska; Mylan C Cohen
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  CT vs SPECT: CT is the first-line test for the diagnosis and prognosis of stable coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Ahmed Aljizeeri; Myra S Cocker; Benjamin J W Chow
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 5.952

6.  The External Validity of Prediction Models for the Diagnosis of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Stable Chest Pain: Insights From the PROMISE Trial.

Authors:  Tessa S S Genders; Adrian Coles; Udo Hoffmann; Manesh R Patel; Daniel B Mark; Kerry L Lee; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink; Pamela S Douglas
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-06-14

Review 7.  Computed tomography coronary angiography - past, present and future.

Authors:  Pei Ing Ngam; Ching Ching Ong; Ping Chai; Siong Sung Wong; Chong Ri Liang; Lynette Li San Teo
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.858

Review 8.  Coronary computed tomography angiography for the assessment of chest pain: current status and future directions.

Authors:  Arthur Nasis; Ian T Meredith; James D Cameron; Sujith K Seneviratne
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 2.357

9.  Accuracy and clinical outcomes of coronary CT angiography for patients with suspected coronary artery disease: a single-centre study in Singapore.

Authors:  Awesh Shamrao Gambre; Charlene Liew; Gayan Hettiarachchi; Sheldon Shao Guang Lee; Michael MacDonald; Carmen Jia Wen Kam; Angeline Choo Choo Poh
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 1.858

10.  Prognostic value of quantitative high-speed myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Ryo Nakazato; Daniel S Berman; Heidi Gransar; Mark Hyun; Romalisa Miranda-Peats; Faith C Kite; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Alan Rozanski; Piotr J Slomka
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 5.952

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.