| Literature DB >> 27080921 |
Eduardo G Bertoldi1,2,3, Steffan F Stella2,3, Luis E Rohde3, Carisi A Polanczyk2,3.
Abstract
Several tests exist for diagnosing coronary artery disease, with varying accuracy and cost. We sought to provide cost-effectiveness information to aid physicians and decision-makers in selecting the most appropriate testing strategy. We used the state-transitions (Markov) model from the Brazilian public health system perspective with a lifetime horizon. Diagnostic strategies were based on exercise electrocardiography (Ex-ECG), stress echocardiography (ECHO), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), computed tomography coronary angiography (CTA), or stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (C-MRI) as the initial test. Systematic review provided input data for test accuracy and long-term prognosis. Cost data were derived from the Brazilian public health system. Diagnostic test strategy had a small but measurable impact in quality-adjusted life-years gained. Switching from Ex-ECG to CTA-based strategies improved outcomes at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 3100 international dollars per quality-adjusted life-year. ECHO-based strategies resulted in cost and effectiveness almost identical to CTA, and SPECT-based strategies were dominated because of their much higher cost. Strategies based on stress C-MRI were most effective, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio vs CTA was higher than the proposed willingness-to-pay threshold. Invasive strategies were dominant in the high pretest probability setting. Sensitivity analysis showed that results were sensitive to costs of CTA, ECHO, and C-MRI. Coronary CT is cost-effective for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease and should be included in the Brazilian public health system. Stress ECHO has a similar performance and is an acceptable alternative for most patients, but invasive strategies should be reserved for patients at high risk.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27080921 PMCID: PMC6490729 DOI: 10.1002/clc.22532
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Cardiol ISSN: 0160-9289 Impact factor: 2.882