L T Burgers1,2, W K Redekop3,4, M J Al4, S K Lhachimi3,4,5, N Armstrong6, S Walker7, C Rothery7, M Westwood6, J L Severens3,4. 1. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. ltburgers@gmail.com. 2. Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. ltburgers@gmail.com. 3. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Research Group for Evidence-Based Public Health, BIPS -Leibniz-Institute für Prevention Research und Epidemiology, Bremen, Germany. 6. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, York, UK. 7. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: New generation dual-source coronary CT (NGCCT) scanners with more than 64 slices were evaluated for patients with (known) or suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD) who are difficult to image: obese, coronary calcium score > 400, arrhythmias, previous revascularization, heart rate > 65 beats per minute, and intolerance of betablocker. A cost-effectiveness analysis of NGCCT compared with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was performed for these difficult-to-image patients for England and Wales. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five models (diagnostic decision model, four Markov models for CAD progression, stroke, radiation and general population) were integrated to estimate the cost-effectiveness of NGCCT for both suspected and known CAD populations. The lifetime costs and effects from the National Health Service perspective were estimated for three strategies: (1) patients diagnosed using ICA, (2) using NGCCT, and (3) patients diagnosed using a combination of NGCCT and, if positive, followed by ICA. In the suspected population, the strategy where patients only undergo a NGCCT is a cost-effective option at accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds. The strategy of using NGCCT in combination with ICA is the most favourable strategy for patients with known CAD. The most influential factors behind these results are the percentage of patients being misclassified (a function of both diagnostic accuracy and the prior likelihood), the complication rates of the procedures, and the cost price of a NGCCT scan. CONCLUSION: The use of NGCCT might be considered cost-effective in both populations since it is cost-saving compared to ICA and generates similar effects.
AIMS: New generation dual-source coronary CT (NGCCT) scanners with more than 64 slices were evaluated for patients with (known) or suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD) who are difficult to image: obese, coronary calcium score > 400, arrhythmias, previous revascularization, heart rate > 65 beats per minute, and intolerance of betablocker. A cost-effectiveness analysis of NGCCT compared with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was performed for these difficult-to-image patients for England and Wales. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five models (diagnostic decision model, four Markov models for CAD progression, stroke, radiation and general population) were integrated to estimate the cost-effectiveness of NGCCT for both suspected and known CAD populations. The lifetime costs and effects from the National Health Service perspective were estimated for three strategies: (1) patients diagnosed using ICA, (2) using NGCCT, and (3) patients diagnosed using a combination of NGCCT and, if positive, followed by ICA. In the suspected population, the strategy where patients only undergo a NGCCT is a cost-effective option at accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds. The strategy of using NGCCT in combination with ICA is the most favourable strategy for patients with known CAD. The most influential factors behind these results are the percentage of patients being misclassified (a function of both diagnostic accuracy and the prior likelihood), the complication rates of the procedures, and the cost price of a NGCCT scan. CONCLUSION: The use of NGCCT might be considered cost-effective in both populations since it is cost-saving compared to ICA and generates similar effects.
Authors: C McKenna; R Wade; R Faria; H Yang; L Stirk; N Gummerson; M Sculpher; N Woolacott Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2012 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Pim A L Tonino; William F Fearon; Bernard De Bruyne; Keith G Oldroyd; Massoud A Leesar; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A Maccarthy; Marcel Van't Veer; Nico H J Pijls Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Johan L Severens; Daniëlle E M Brunenberg; Elisabeth A L Fenwick; Bernie O'Brien; Manuela A Joore Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2005 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Andrew Briggs; Borislava Mihaylova; Mark Sculpher; Alistair Hall; Jane Wolstenholme; Maarten Simoons; Jaap Deckers; Roberto Ferrari; Willem J Remme; Michel Bertrand; Kim Fox Journal: Heart Date: 2006-11-29 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Ben Bridgewater; Antony D Grayson; Nicholas Brooks; Geir Grotte; Brian M Fabri; John Au; Tim Hooper; Mark Jones; Bruce Keogh Journal: Heart Date: 2007-01-19 Impact factor: 5.994
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: Simon Walker; François Girardin; Claire McKenna; Stephen G Ball; Jane Nixon; Sven Plein; John P Greenwood; Mark Sculpher Journal: Heart Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 5.994