Seung-Pyo Lee1, Eun Jin Jang2, Yong-Jin Kim1, Myung-Jin Cha1, Sun-Young Park3, Hyun Jin Song3, Ji Eun Choi4, Jung-Im Shim4, Jeonghoon Ahn4, Hyun Joo Lee5. 1. Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea; Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea; Department of Information Statistics, Andong National University, Andong-si, Korea. 3. National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea; School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon-si, Korea. 4. National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea. 5. National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea; Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongro-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea. Electronic address: hjleedr@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) has been proven accurate and is incorporated in clinical recommendations for coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnosis workup, but cost-effectiveness data, especially in comparison to other methods such as myocardial single photon emission CT (SPECT) are insufficient. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of CCTA and myocardial SPECT in a real-world setting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study on consecutive patients with suspected CAD and a pretest probability between 10% and 90%. Test accuracy was compared by correcting referral bias to coronary angiography depending on noninvasive test results based on the Bayes' theorem and also by incorporating 1-year follow-up results. Cost-effectiveness was analyzed using test accuracy and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The model using diagnostic accuracy used the number of patients accurately diagnosed among 1000 persons as the effect and contained only expenses for diagnostic testing as the cost. In the model using QALY, a decision tree was developed, and the time horizon was 1 year. RESULTS: CCTA was performed in 635 patients and SPECT in 997 patients. An accurate diagnosis per 1000 patients was achieved in 725 patients by CCTA vs 661 patients by SPECT. In the model using diagnostic accuracy, CCTA was more effective and less expensive than SPECT ($725.38 for CCTA vs $661.46 for SPECT). In the model using QALY, CCTA was generally more effective in terms of life quality (0.00221 QALY) and cost ($513) than SPECT. However, cost utility varied among subgroups, with SPECT outperforming CCTA in patients with a pretest probability of 30% to 60% (0.01890 QALY; $113). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that CCTA may be more cost-effective than myocardial SPECT.
BACKGROUND: Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) has been proven accurate and is incorporated in clinical recommendations for coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnosis workup, but cost-effectiveness data, especially in comparison to other methods such as myocardial single photon emission CT (SPECT) are insufficient. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of CCTA and myocardial SPECT in a real-world setting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study on consecutive patients with suspected CAD and a pretest probability between 10% and 90%. Test accuracy was compared by correcting referral bias to coronary angiography depending on noninvasive test results based on the Bayes' theorem and also by incorporating 1-year follow-up results. Cost-effectiveness was analyzed using test accuracy and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The model using diagnostic accuracy used the number of patients accurately diagnosed among 1000 persons as the effect and contained only expenses for diagnostic testing as the cost. In the model using QALY, a decision tree was developed, and the time horizon was 1 year. RESULTS:CCTA was performed in 635 patients and SPECT in 997 patients. An accurate diagnosis per 1000 patients was achieved in 725 patients by CCTA vs 661 patients by SPECT. In the model using diagnostic accuracy, CCTA was more effective and less expensive than SPECT ($725.38 for CCTA vs $661.46 for SPECT). In the model using QALY, CCTA was generally more effective in terms of life quality (0.00221 QALY) and cost ($513) than SPECT. However, cost utility varied among subgroups, with SPECT outperforming CCTA in patients with a pretest probability of 30% to 60% (0.01890 QALY; $113). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that CCTA may be more cost-effective than myocardial SPECT.
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Ron Blankstein; Jill E Jacobs; Jonathon A Leipsic; Raymond Y Kwong; Viviany R Taqueti; Rob S B Beanlands; Jennifer H Mieres; Scott D Flamm; Thomas C Gerber; John Spertus; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Joseph A Ladapo; Udo Hoffmann; Kerry L Lee; Adrian Coles; Megan Huang; Daniel B Mark; Rowena J Dolor; Robert A Pelberg; Matthew Budoff; Gardar Sigurdsson; Harry W Severance; Pamela S Douglas Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-10-12 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Patricia Bastos do Carmo; Carlos Alberto da Silva Magliano; Helena Cramer Veiga Rey; Gabriel C Camargo; Luís Filipe Lannes Trocado; Ilan Gottlieb Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Rasmus Bo Hasselbalch; Mia Pries-Heje; Thomas Engstrøm; Andreas Sandø; Merete Heitmann; Frants Pedersen; Morten Schou; Hans Mickley; Hanne Elming; Rolf Steffensen; Lars Koeber; Kasper Karmark Iversen Journal: Open Heart Date: 2019-10-03
Authors: Rasmus Bo Hasselbalch; Mia Marie Pries-Heje; Sarah Louise Kjølhede Holle; Thomas Engstrøm; Merete Heitmann; Frants Pedersen; Morten Schou; Hans Mickley; Hanne Elming; Rolf Steffensen; Lars Koeber; Kasper Iversen Journal: Open Heart Date: 2020-10