Literature DB >> 20446040

Cost-effective diagnostic cardiovascular imaging: when does it provide good value for the money?

Hansel J Otero1, Frank J Rybicki, Dan Greenberg, Dimitrios Mitsouras, Jorge A Mendoza, Peter J Neumann.   

Abstract

To summarize the results of all original cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in diagnostic cardiovascular imaging (CVI) and characterize those technologies by estimates of their cost-effectiveness. We systematically searched the literature for original CVI CUAs published between 2000 and 2008. Studies were classified according to several variables including anatomy of interest (e.g. cerebrovascular, aorta, peripheral) and imaging modality under study (e.g. angiography, ultrasound). The results of each study, expressed as cost of the intervention to number of quality-adjusted life years saved ratio (cost/QALY) were additionally classified as favorable or not using $20,000, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY thresholds. The distribution of results was assessed with Chi Square or Fisher exact test, as indicated. Sixty-nine percent of all cardiovascular imaging CUAs were published between 2000 and 2008. Thirty-two studies reporting 82 cost/QALY ratios were included in the final sample. The most common vascular areas studied were cerebrovascular (n = 9) and cardiac (n = 8). Sixty-six percent (21/32) of studies focused on sonography, followed by conventional angiography and CT (25%, n = 8, each). Twenty-nine (35.4%), 42 (51.2%), and 53 (64.6%) ratios were favorable at WTP $20,000/QALY, $50,000/QALY, and $100,000/QALY, respectively. Thirty (36.6%) ratios compared one imaging test versus medical or surgical interventions; 26 (31.7%) ratios compared imaging to a different imaging test and another 26 (31.7%) to no intervention. Imaging interventions were more likely (P < 0.01) to be favorable when compared to observation, medical treatment or non-intervention than when compared to a different imaging test at WTP $100,000/QALY. The diagnostic cardiovascular imaging literature has growth substantially. The studies available have, in general, favorable cost-effectiveness profiles with major determinants relating to being compared against observation, medical or no intervention instead of other imaging tests.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20446040      PMCID: PMC2927101          DOI: 10.1007/s10554-010-9634-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1569-5794            Impact factor:   2.357


  54 in total

1.  Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann; Allison B Rosen; Milton C Weinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-10-06       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure.

Authors:  David J Brenner; Eric J Hall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness analysis in radiology.

Authors:  Ania Zofia Kielar; Robert H El-Maraghi; Ruth C Carlos
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Cost-effectiveness of screening for deep vein thrombosis by ultrasound at admission to stroke rehabilitation.

Authors:  Richard D Wilson; Patrick K Murray
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.966

5.  The clinical and financial impact of non-invasive vascular testing in the USA.

Authors:  W J Zwiebel
Journal:  Australas Radiol       Date:  1995-08

6.  Immediate computed tomography scanning of acute stroke is cost-effective and improves quality of life.

Authors:  Joanna M Wardlaw; Janelle Seymour; John Cairns; Sarah Keir; Steff Lewis; Peter Sandercock
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2004-09-30       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  The cost-effectiveness of a "quick-screen" program for abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Authors:  Thomas Y Lee; Peter Korn; Jennifer A Heller; Sashi Kilaru; Frederick P Beavers; Harry L Bush; K Craig Kent
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.982

8.  Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms in men: a Canadian perspective using Monte Carlo-based estimates.

Authors:  Bernard Montreuil; James Brophy
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.089

9.  Incorporating patient-centered outcomes in the analysis of cost-effectiveness: imaging strategies for renovascular hypertension.

Authors:  Ruth C Carlos; David A Axelrod; James H Ellis; Paul H Abrahamse; A Mark Fendrick
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Proposed declassification of disease categories related to sexual orientation in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11).

Authors:  Susan D Cochran; Jack Drescher; Eszter Kismödi; Alain Giami; Claudia García-Moreno; Elham Atalla; Adele Marais; Elisabeth Meloni Vieira; Geoffrey M Reed
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 9.408

View more
  9 in total

1.  Evidence for prospective ECG-triggering coronary CT angiography in routine practice.

Authors:  Ali Salavati; Frank J Rybicki
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  Cost and benefit in cardiovascular imaging: the quest for economic sustainability.

Authors:  Carlo Giacomo Leo; Clara Carpeggiani; Eugenio Picano
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2010-05-01       Impact factor: 2.357

3.  Evaluating imaging and computer-aided detection and diagnosis devices at the FDA.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; Heang-Ping Chan; Carl J D'Orsi; Lori E Dodd; Maryellen L Giger; David Gur; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Charles E Metz; Kyle J Myers; Nancy A Obuchowski; Berkman Sahiner; Alicia Y Toledano; Margarita L Zuley
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Publication trends in noninvasive cardiovascular imaging: 1991-2011: a retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Sobia Mujtaba; Jessica M Peña; Mohan Pamerla; Cynthia C Taub
Journal:  Am J Cardiovasc Dis       Date:  2013-11-01

5.  Population based ultrasonographic screening of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Authors:  Prabhakar Rajiah; Johan H C Reiber; Sasan Partovi
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 2.357

6.  Coronary Artery Calcium Testing in Symptomatic Patients: An Issue of Diagnostic Efficiency.

Authors:  Chad B McBride; Michael K Cheezum; Rosco S Gore; Induruwa N Pathirana; Ahmad M Slim; Todd C Villines
Journal:  Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep       Date:  2013-06

Review 7.  Cardiovascular imaging 2010 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

Authors:  Ricardo A Costa; Johan H C Reiber; Frank J Rybicki; Paul Schoenhagen; Arthur A Stillman; Johan de Sutter; Nico R L van de Veire; Ernst E van der Wall
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-02-24       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 8.  Thoracic ultrasound: An adjunctive and valuable imaging tool in emergency, resource-limited settings and for a sustainable monitoring of patients.

Authors:  Francesca M Trovato; Daniela Catalano; Guglielmo M Trovato
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2016-09-28

9.  Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease in Germany.

Authors:  Julia Boldt; Alexander W Leber; Klaus Bonaventura; Christian Sohns; Martin Stula; Alexander Huppertz; Wilhelm Haverkamp; Marc Dorenkamp
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 5.364

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.