Literature DB >> 2785587

Economic analysis of clinical positron emission tomography of the heart with rubidium-82.

K L Gould1, R A Goldstein, N A Mullani.   

Abstract

This report describes a cost analysis for clinical positron emission tomography (PET) of the heart using generator produced rubidium-82 (82Rb). Considered sequentially are the clinical problem, current noninvasive radionuclide methods, positron emission tomograph, and the cost of PET per study. Also analyzed are the costs of PET versus thallium imaging in the management of chest pain, for screening asymptomatic men at high risk for coronary artery disease and for evaluating myocardial viability after myocardial infarction or thrombolytic therapy. Noninvasive assessment of coronary artery stenosis and myocardial ischemia/viability in symptomatic or asymptomatic subjects remains a major medical problem because the sensitivity and specificity of thallium imaging are only 70-85% and 50-70%, respectively, in recent studies. Cardiac positron imaging has an accuracy for noninvasive diagnosis of coronary artery disease in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with a sensitivity and specificity of 95-98%. It can also be used for assessing physiologic stenosis severity, for imaging myocardial infarction and viability, for assessing effects of interventions such as thrombolysis, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) or bypass surgery on myocardial perfusion, metabolism or coronary flow reserve, for assessing collateral function noninvasively in man, and for diagnosing cardiomyopathy not due to coronary artery disease. Although the cost for cardiac PET with 82Rb may be modestly higher than for 201Tl, the greater diagnostic yield of PET results in comparable or lower overall medical management costs than no diagnostic tests/interventions and lower overall costs compared to thallium imaging for evaluating patients with chest pain, asymptomatic high risk males, and patients after acute myocardial infarction/thrombolysis for myocardial viability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2785587

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  11 in total

Review 1.  Uses and limitations of positron emission tomography in clinical pharmacokinetics/dynamics (Part II).

Authors:  L L Ponto; J A Ponto
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 2.  Present and future of clinical cardiovascular PET imaging in Europe--a position statement by the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology (ECNC).

Authors:  D Le Guludec; R Lautamäki; J Knuuti; J J Bax; F M Bengel
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-06-26       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  PET in clinical cardiology: can we already swim?

Authors:  J A Blokland; E K Pauwels; E E van der Wall
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1990

Review 4.  [Examination of myocardial perfusion with positron emission tomography: a clinically useful and valid method?].

Authors:  J vom Dahl
Journal:  Herz       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 5.  Detecting and assessing severity of coronary artery disease in humans.

Authors:  K L Gould
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  1990 Feb-Mar       Impact factor: 2.740

6.  Cost analysis of diagnostic testing for coronary artery disease in women with stable chest pain. Economics of Noninvasive Diagnosis (END) Study Group.

Authors:  L J Shaw; G V Heller; M I Travin; M Lauer; T Marwick; R Hachamovitch; D S Berman; D D Miller
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 7.  Clinical cardiac PET using generator-produced Rb-82: a review.

Authors:  K L Gould
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  1989 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.740

Review 8.  Cost efficiency of nuclear cardiology services in the modern health care environment.

Authors:  D Douglas Miller
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 9.  Myocardial viability: what do we need?

Authors:  H Schoeder; M Friedrich; H Topp
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1993-09

10.  Assessing the downstream value of first-line cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) imaging using real world Medicare fee-for-service claims data.

Authors:  Qinli Ma; Gayathri Sridhar; Thomas Power; Abiy Agiro
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 5.952

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.