Dennis M Hedderich1, José M Ferro2, Wolfgang G Kunz3. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. dennis.hedderich@tum.de. 2. Neurosciences Department, Santa Maria Hospital/CHULN, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Imaging is crucial for management of patients with possible cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different noninvasive imaging strategies in patients with possible CVT. METHODS: A decision model based on Markov simulations estimated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) associated with the following imaging strategies: non-contrast CT (NCCT), NCCT plus CT venography (CTV), routine MRI without vascular imaging (R-MRI), and MRI with venography (MRV). The analysis was performed from a US healthcare perspective. Model input was based on best available and most recent evidence, including outcome data from the International Study on Cerebral Vein and Dural Sinus Thrombosis (ISCVT). Starting age was 37 years; both high and low pre-test probabilities of CVT were evaluated. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) estimated model uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, NCCT and CTV were dominant over R-MRI and MRV. CTV led to incremental lifetime QALYs compared with NCCT (23.385 QALYs vs. 23.374 QALYs) at slightly higher lifetime costs ($5210 vs. $5057). In PSA, CTV was the strategy with the highest percentage of cost-effective iterations if willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were higher than $13,750/QALY. Complying with contemporary WTP thresholds, CTV was thus identified as the most cost-effective strategy. When the pre-test probability was set to 50%, CTV was also preferred. CONCLUSION: In patients at the peak age of CVT incidence yet low clinical pre-test probability, diagnostic imaging with CTV is the most cost-effective strategy.
PURPOSE: Imaging is crucial for management of patients with possible cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different noninvasive imaging strategies in patients with possible CVT. METHODS: A decision model based on Markov simulations estimated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) associated with the following imaging strategies: non-contrast CT (NCCT), NCCT plus CT venography (CTV), routine MRI without vascular imaging (R-MRI), and MRI with venography (MRV). The analysis was performed from a US healthcare perspective. Model input was based on best available and most recent evidence, including outcome data from the International Study on Cerebral Vein and Dural Sinus Thrombosis (ISCVT). Starting age was 37 years; both high and low pre-test probabilities of CVT were evaluated. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) estimated model uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, NCCT and CTV were dominant over R-MRI and MRV. CTV led to incremental lifetime QALYs compared with NCCT (23.385 QALYs vs. 23.374 QALYs) at slightly higher lifetime costs ($5210 vs. $5057). In PSA, CTV was the strategy with the highest percentage of cost-effective iterations if willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were higher than $13,750/QALY. Complying with contemporary WTP thresholds, CTV was thus identified as the most cost-effective strategy. When the pre-test probability was set to 50%, CTV was also preferred. CONCLUSION: In patients at the peak age of CVT incidence yet low clinical pre-test probability, diagnostic imaging with CTV is the most cost-effective strategy.
Authors: Joana Gameiro; José M Ferro; Patricia Canhão; Jan Stam; Fernando Barinagarrementeria; Arne Lindgren Journal: Cephalalgia Date: 2012-03-09 Impact factor: 6.292
Authors: Gustavo Saposnik; Fernando Barinagarrementeria; Robert D Brown; Cheryl D Bushnell; Brett Cucchiara; Mary Cushman; Gabrielle deVeber; Jose M Ferro; Fong Y Tsai Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Imanda M E Alons; Ben F J Goudsmit; Korne Jellema; Marianne A A van Walderveen; Marieke J H Wermer; Ale Algra Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2017-12-23 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: José M Ferro; Patrícia Canhão; Jan Stam; Marie-Germaine Bousser; Fernando Barinagarrementeria Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-02-19 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: J Linn; T Pfefferkorn; K Ivanicova; S Müller-Schunk; S Hartz; M Wiesmann; M Dichgans; H Brückmann Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-02-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ava L Liberman; Hui Zhang; Sara K Rostanski; Natalie T Cheng; Charles C Esenwa; Neil Haranhalli; Puneet Singh; Daniel L Labovitz; Richard B Lipton; Shyam Prabhakaran Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 6.106