OBJECTIVES: To determine the costs and cost-effectiveness of a diagnostic strategy including computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in comparison with invasive conventional coronary angiography (CA) for the detection of significant coronary artery disease from the point of view of the healthcare provider. METHODS: The average cost per CTCA was determined via a micro-costing method in four French hospitals, and the cost of CA was taken from the 2011 French National Cost Study that collects data at the patient level from a sample of 51 public or not-for-profit hospitals. RESULTS: The average cost of CTCA was estimated to be 180<euro> (95 % CI 162-206<euro>) based on the use of a 64-slice CT scanner active for 10 h per day. The average cost of CA was estimated to be 1,378<euro> (95 % CI 1,126-1,670<euro>). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CA for all patients over a strategy including CTCA triage in the intermediate risk group, no imaging test in the low risk group, and CA in the high risk group, was estimated to be 6,380<euro> (95 % CI 4,714-8,965<euro>) for each additional correctly classified patient. This strategy correctly classifies 95.3 % (95 % CI 94.4-96.2) of all patients in the population studied. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of CTCA triage in the intermediate-risk group, no imaging test in the low-risk group, and CA in the high-risk group, has good diagnostic accuracy and could significantly cut costs. Medium-term and long-term outcomes need to be evaluated in patients with coronary stenosis potentially misclassified by CTCA due to false negative examinations.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the costs and cost-effectiveness of a diagnostic strategy including computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in comparison with invasive conventional coronary angiography (CA) for the detection of significant coronary artery disease from the point of view of the healthcare provider. METHODS: The average cost per CTCA was determined via a micro-costing method in four French hospitals, and the cost of CA was taken from the 2011 French National Cost Study that collects data at the patient level from a sample of 51 public or not-for-profit hospitals. RESULTS: The average cost of CTCA was estimated to be 180<euro> (95 % CI 162-206<euro>) based on the use of a 64-slice CT scanner active for 10 h per day. The average cost of CA was estimated to be 1,378<euro> (95 % CI 1,126-1,670<euro>). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CA for all patients over a strategy including CTCA triage in the intermediate risk group, no imaging test in the low risk group, and CA in the high risk group, was estimated to be 6,380<euro> (95 % CI 4,714-8,965<euro>) for each additional correctly classified patient. This strategy correctly classifies 95.3 % (95 % CI 94.4-96.2) of all patients in the population studied. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of CTCA triage in the intermediate-risk group, no imaging test in the low-risk group, and CA in the high-risk group, has good diagnostic accuracy and could significantly cut costs. Medium-term and long-term outcomes need to be evaluated in patients with coronary stenosis potentially misclassified by CTCA due to false negative examinations.
Authors: Edward A Hulten; Salvatore Carbonaro; Sara P Petrillo; Joshua D Mitchell; Todd C Villines Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Riccardo Marano; Francesco De Cobelli; Irene Floriani; Christoph Becker; Christopher Herzog; Maurizio Centonze; Giovanni Morana; Gian Franco Gualdi; Guido Ligabue; Gianluca Pontone; Carlo Catalano; Dante Chiappino; Massimo Midiri; Giovanni Simonetti; Filippo Marchisio; Lucio Olivetti; Rossella Fattori; Lorenzo Bonomo; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: D B Pryor; L Shaw; C B McCants; K L Lee; D B Mark; F E Harrell; L H Muhlbaier; R M Califf Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1993-01-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: M Westwood; M Al; L Burgers; K Redekop; S Lhachimi; N Armstrong; H Raatz; K Misso; J Severens; J Kleijnen Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2013 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: L T Burgers; W K Redekop; M J Al; S K Lhachimi; N Armstrong; S Walker; C Rothery; M Westwood; J L Severens Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2016-09-20
Authors: Matthias Rief; Sarah Feger; Peter Martus; Michael Laule; Marc Dewey; Eva Schönenberger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 3.240