Kate C Young1, Curtis G Benesch, Babak S Jahromi. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Rochester, 601 Elmwood Ave., Box 681, Rochester, NY 14642, USA. kate_young@urmc.rochester.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Multimodal CT, including noncontrast CT (NCCT), CT with contrast, CT angiography (CTA), and perfusion CT (CTP), is increasingly used in acute stroke patients to identify candidates for endovascular therapy. Our goal is to explore the cost-effectiveness of multimodal CT as a diagnostic test. METHODS: A Markov model compared multimodal CT to NCCT in a hypothetical cohort of nonhemorrhagic stroke patients presenting within 3 hours of symptom onset who were potential IV tPA candidates. Patients who failed to improve after IV tPA or in whom IV tPA was contraindicated were candidates for endovascular therapy. Direct costs (2008 USD), outcomes, and probabilities were obtained from the literature. RESULTS: For the 3-month time horizon, multimodal CT had lower costs (-$1,716), had greater quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs, 0.004), and was the cost-effective choice 100% of the time for a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY (probabilistic sensitivity analysis). The number needed to screen with multimodal CT to avoid 1 diagnostic angiogram was 2. Over a lifetime, multimodal CT had lower costs (-$2,058), had greater QALYs (0.008), and was cost-effective, with a 90.1% likelihood, for a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal CT appears to be a cost-saving screening tool over the short term. However, additional data regarding clinical outcomes following multimodal CT-guided intra-arterial treatment are needed before the long-term cost-effectiveness can be suitably addressed. This analysis can be incorporated into future discussions of multimodal CT as a diagnostic test for unselected patients, within and beyond the 3-hour IV tPA time window.
OBJECTIVE: Multimodal CT, including noncontrast CT (NCCT), CT with contrast, CT angiography (CTA), and perfusion CT (CTP), is increasingly used in acute strokepatients to identify candidates for endovascular therapy. Our goal is to explore the cost-effectiveness of multimodal CT as a diagnostic test. METHODS: A Markov model compared multimodal CT to NCCT in a hypothetical cohort of nonhemorrhagic strokepatients presenting within 3 hours of symptom onset who were potential IV tPA candidates. Patients who failed to improve after IV tPA or in whom IV tPA was contraindicated were candidates for endovascular therapy. Direct costs (2008 USD), outcomes, and probabilities were obtained from the literature. RESULTS: For the 3-month time horizon, multimodal CT had lower costs (-$1,716), had greater quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs, 0.004), and was the cost-effective choice 100% of the time for a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY (probabilistic sensitivity analysis). The number needed to screen with multimodal CT to avoid 1 diagnostic angiogram was 2. Over a lifetime, multimodal CT had lower costs (-$2,058), had greater QALYs (0.008), and was cost-effective, with a 90.1% likelihood, for a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal CT appears to be a cost-saving screening tool over the short term. However, additional data regarding clinical outcomes following multimodal CT-guided intra-arterial treatment are needed before the long-term cost-effectiveness can be suitably addressed. This analysis can be incorporated into future discussions of multimodal CT as a diagnostic test for unselected patients, within and beyond the 3-hour IV tPA time window.
Authors: J L Cronenwett; J D Birkmeyer; G B Nackman; M F Fillinger; F R Bech; R M Zwolak; D B Walsh Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: B D Murphy; A J Fox; D H Lee; D J Sahlas; S E Black; M J Hogan; S B Coutts; A M Demchuk; M Goyal; R I Aviv; S Symons; I B Gulka; V Beletsky; D Pelz; V Hachinski; R Chan; T-Y Lee Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-06-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: A A Dawkins; A L Evans; J Wattam; C A J Romanowski; D J A Connolly; T J Hodgson; S C Coley Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2007-06-27 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Werner Hacke; Geoffrey Donnan; Cesare Fieschi; Markku Kaste; Rüdiger von Kummer; Joseph P Broderick; Thomas Brott; Michael Frankel; James C Grotta; E Clarke Haley; Thomas Kwiatkowski; Steven R Levine; Chris Lewandowski; Mei Lu; Patrick Lyden; John R Marler; Suresh Patel; Barbara C Tilley; Gregory Albers; Erich Bluhmki; Manfred Wilhelm; Scott Hamilton Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-03-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sashi Kilaru; Peter Korn; Karthikeshwar Kasirajan; Thomas Y Lee; Frederick P Beavers; Ross T Lyon; Harry L Bush; K Craig Kent Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Wade S Smith; Gene Sung; Jeffrey Saver; Ronald Budzik; Gary Duckwiler; David S Liebeskind; Helmi L Lutsep; Marilyn M Rymer; Randall T Higashida; Sidney Starkman; Y Pierre Gobin; Donald Frei; Thomas Grobelny; Frank Hellinger; Dan Huddle; Chelsea Kidwell; Walter Koroshetz; Michael Marks; Gary Nesbit; Isaac E Silverman Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: T Das; F Settecase; M Boulos; T Huynh; C D d'Esterre; S P Symons; L Zhang; R I Aviv Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Denise M Boudreau; Greg Guzauskas; Kathleen F Villa; Susan C Fagan; David L Veenstra Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: P C Sanelli; A Pandya; A Z Segal; A Gupta; S Hurtado-Rua; J Ivanidze; K Kesavabhotla; D Mir; A I Mushlin; M G M Hunink Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Shahmir Kamalian; Shervin Kamalian; Stuart R Pomerantz; Teerath P Tanpitukpongse; Rajiv Gupta; Javier M Romero; Douglas S Katz Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2013-03-22
Authors: Sebastian E Beyer; Myriam G Hunink; Florian Schöberl; Louisa von Baumgarten; Steffen E Petersen; Martin Dichgans; Hendrik Janssen; Birgit Ertl-Wagner; Maximilian F Reiser; Wieland H Sommer Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ankur Pandya; Ashley A Eggman; Hooman Kamel; Ajay Gupta; Bruce R Schackman; Pina C Sanelli Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 3.240