PURPOSE: This study evaluated the incremental value and cost-effectiveness ratio of introducing coronary angiography (CA) with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT-CA) in the diagnostic management of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with the traditional diagnostic workup. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five hundred and fifty consecutive patients who underwent MDCT-CA between January 2009 and June 2011 were considered. Patients with atypical chest pain and suspected obstructive CAD were directed to one of two diagnostic pathways: the traditional protocol (examination, stress test, CA) and the current protocol (examination, stress test, MDCT-CA, and CA, if necessary). The costs of each protocol and for the individual method were calculated. Based on the results, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the two diagnostic pathways was compared. A third, modified, diagnostic pathway has been proposed with its relative cost-effectiveness ratio (examination, MDCT-CA, stress test, and CA, if necessary). RESULTS: Stress test vs. MDCT-CA had an accuracy of 66%, a sensitivity and specificity of 21% and 87%, respectively, and a positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive value of 40% and 70%, respectively. Comparison between conventional CA (CCA) and MDCT-CA showed a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 89%, respectively, a PPV and NPV of 89%, and an accuracy of 92%. The traditional protocol has higher costs than the second protocol: 1,645 euro against 322 euro (mean), but it shows a better cost-effectiveness ratio. The new proposed protocol has lower costs, mean 261 euro, with a better costeffectiveness ratio than the traditional protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic protocol for patients with suspected CAD has been modified by the introduction of MDCT-CA. Our study confirms the greater diagnostic performance of MDCT-CA compared with stress test and its similar accuracy to CCA. The use of MDCT-CA to select patients for CCA has a favourable cost-effectiveness profile.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the incremental value and cost-effectiveness ratio of introducing coronary angiography (CA) with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT-CA) in the diagnostic management of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with the traditional diagnostic workup. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five hundred and fifty consecutive patients who underwent MDCT-CA between January 2009 and June 2011 were considered. Patients with atypical chest pain and suspected obstructive CAD were directed to one of two diagnostic pathways: the traditional protocol (examination, stress test, CA) and the current protocol (examination, stress test, MDCT-CA, and CA, if necessary). The costs of each protocol and for the individual method were calculated. Based on the results, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the two diagnostic pathways was compared. A third, modified, diagnostic pathway has been proposed with its relative cost-effectiveness ratio (examination, MDCT-CA, stress test, and CA, if necessary). RESULTS: Stress test vs. MDCT-CA had an accuracy of 66%, a sensitivity and specificity of 21% and 87%, respectively, and a positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive value of 40% and 70%, respectively. Comparison between conventional CA (CCA) and MDCT-CA showed a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 89%, respectively, a PPV and NPV of 89%, and an accuracy of 92%. The traditional protocol has higher costs than the second protocol: 1,645 euro against 322 euro (mean), but it shows a better cost-effectiveness ratio. The new proposed protocol has lower costs, mean 261 euro, with a better costeffectiveness ratio than the traditional protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic protocol for patients with suspected CAD has been modified by the introduction of MDCT-CA. Our study confirms the greater diagnostic performance of MDCT-CA compared with stress test and its similar accuracy to CCA. The use of MDCT-CA to select patients for CCA has a favourable cost-effectiveness profile.
Authors: S Achenbach; S Ulzheimer; U Baum; M Kachelriess; D Ropers; T Giesler; W Bautz; W G Daniel; W A Kalender; W Moshage Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-12-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stephen Schroeder; Stephan Achenbach; Frank Bengel; Christof Burgstahler; Filippo Cademartiri; Pim de Feyter; Richard George; Philipp Kaufmann; Andreas F Kopp; Juhani Knuuti; Dieter Ropers; Joanne Schuijf; Laurens F Tops; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-12-15 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: R Malagò; M D'Onofrio; I Baglio; S Brunelli; D Tavella; F Beltrame; P Benussi; R Pozzi Mucelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: W Bob Meijboom; Annick C Weustink; Francesca Pugliese; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Nico R Mollet; Niels van Pelt; Filippo Cademartiri; Koen Nieman; Eleni Vourvouri; Eveline Regar; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: E Maffei; A Palumbo; C Martini; W Meijboom; C Tedeschi; P Spagnolo; A Zuccarelli; A Weustink; T Torri; N Mollet; S Seitun; G P Krestin; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E Maffei; A Palumbo; C Martini; A Cuttone; F Ugo; E Emiliano; A Menozzi; L Vignali; V Brambilla; P Coruzzi; A Weustink; N Mollet; D Ardissino; C Reverberi; G Crisi; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Ludovico La Grutta; Anselmo Alessandro Palumbo; Erica Maffei; Giuseppe Runza; Tommaso Vincenzo Bartolotta; Francesca Pugliese; Nico R A Mollet; Massimo Midiri; Gabriel P Krestin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: A M Bucher; C N De Cecco; U J Schoepf; R Wang; F G Meinel; S R Binukrishnan; J V Spearman; T J Vogl; B Ruzsics Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 3.039