Yin Ge1, Ankur Pandya2, Kevin Steel3, Scott Bingham4, Michael Jerosch-Herold1, Yi-Yun Chen1, J Ronald Mikolich5, Andrew E Arai6, W Patricia Bandettini6, Amit R Patel7, Afshin Farzaneh-Far8, John F Heitner9, Chetan Shenoy10, Steve W Leung11, Jorge A Gonzalez12, Dipan J Shah13, Subha V Raman14, Victor A Ferrari15, Jeanette Schulz-Menger16, Rory Hachamovitch17, Matthias Stuber18, Orlando P Simonetti14, Raymond Y Kwong19. 1. Noninvasive Cardiovascular Imaging Section, Cardiovascular Division of Department of Medicine and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Cardiology Division, San Antonio Military Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas. 4. Revere Health, Provo, Utah. 5. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Sharon Regional Health System, Sharon, Pennsylvania. 6. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 7. Section of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 8. Division of Cardiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 9. Division of Cardiology, New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, Brooklyn, New York. 10. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 11. Gill Heart and Vascular Institute, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 12. Division of Cardiology and Radiology, Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, California. 13. Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, Texas. 14. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 15. Cardiovascular Division, Perelman School of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 16. Working Group on Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance at ECRC, Charité, Medical Faculty of the Humboldt-University Berlin and Helios Clinics, Berlin, Germany, Partner Site DZHK. 17. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 18. Department of Radiology, University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 19. Noninvasive Cardiovascular Imaging Section, Cardiovascular Division of Department of Medicine and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: rykwong@bwh.harvard.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare, using results from the multicenter SPINS (Stress CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States) study, the incremental cost-effectiveness of a stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-first strategy against 4 other clinical strategies for patients with stable symptoms suspicious for myocardial ischemia: 1) immediate x-ray coronary angiography (XCA) with selective fractional flow reserve for all patients; 2) single-photon emission computed tomography; 3) coronary computed tomographic angiography with selective computed tomographic fractional flow reserve; and 4) no imaging. BACKGROUND: Stress CMR perfusion imaging has established excellent diagnostic utility and prognostic value in coronary artery disease (CAD), but its cost-effectiveness in current clinical practice has not been well studied in the United States. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed to project health care costs and lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for symptomatic patients at presentation with a 32.4% prevalence of obstructive CAD. Rates of clinical events, costs, and quality-of-life values were estimated from SPINS and other published research. The analysis was conducted from a U.S. health care system perspective, with health and cost outcomes discounted annually at 3%. RESULTS: Using hard cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death or acute myocardial infarction) as the endpoint, total costs per person were lowest for the no-imaging strategy ($16,936) and highest for the immediate XCA strategy ($20,929). Lifetime QALYs were lowest for the no-imaging strategy (12.72050) and highest for the immediate XCA strategy (12.76535). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the CMR-based strategy compared with the no-imaging strategy was $52,000/QALY, whereas the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the immediate XCA strategy was $12 million/QALY compared with CMR. Results were sensitive to variations in model inputs for prevalence of disease, hazard rate ratio for treatment of CAD, and annual discount rate. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to invasive XCA, stress CMR can be a cost-effective gatekeeping tool in patients at risk for obstructive CAD in the United States. (Stress CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States [SPINS] Study; NCT03192891.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare, using results from the multicenter SPINS (Stress CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States) study, the incremental cost-effectiveness of a stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-first strategy against 4 other clinical strategies for patients with stable symptoms suspicious for myocardial ischemia: 1) immediate x-ray coronary angiography (XCA) with selective fractional flow reserve for all patients; 2) single-photon emission computed tomography; 3) coronary computed tomographic angiography with selective computed tomographic fractional flow reserve; and 4) no imaging. BACKGROUND:Stress CMR perfusion imaging has established excellent diagnostic utility and prognostic value in coronary artery disease (CAD), but its cost-effectiveness in current clinical practice has not been well studied in the United States. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed to project health care costs and lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for symptomatic patients at presentation with a 32.4% prevalence of obstructive CAD. Rates of clinical events, costs, and quality-of-life values were estimated from SPINS and other published research. The analysis was conducted from a U.S. health care system perspective, with health and cost outcomes discounted annually at 3%. RESULTS: Using hard cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death or acute myocardial infarction) as the endpoint, total costs per person were lowest for the no-imaging strategy ($16,936) and highest for the immediate XCA strategy ($20,929). Lifetime QALYs were lowest for the no-imaging strategy (12.72050) and highest for the immediate XCA strategy (12.76535). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the CMR-based strategy compared with the no-imaging strategy was $52,000/QALY, whereas the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the immediate XCA strategy was $12 million/QALY compared with CMR. Results were sensitive to variations in model inputs for prevalence of disease, hazard rate ratio for treatment of CAD, and annual discount rate. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to invasive XCA, stress CMR can be a cost-effective gatekeeping tool in patients at risk for obstructive CAD in the United States. (Stress CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States [SPINS] Study; NCT03192891.
Authors: Casper W H Beijnink; Troels Thim; Dirk Jan van der Heijden; Igor Klem; Rasha Al-Lamee; Jacqueline L Vos; Yvonne Koop; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Marcel A M Beijk; Raymond J Kim; Justin Davies; Luis Raposo; Sérgio B Baptista; Javier Escaned; Jan J Piek; Michael Maeng; Niels van Royen; Robin Nijveldt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ankur Pandya; Yuan-Jui Yu; Yin Ge; Eike Nagel; Raymond Y Kwong; Rafidah Abu Bakar; John D Grizzard; Alexander E Merkler; Ntobeko Ntusi; Steffen E Petersen; Nina Rashedi; Juerg Schwitter; Joseph B Selvanayagam; James A White; James Carr; Subha V Raman; Orlando P Simonetti; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci; Lilia M Sierra-Galan; Victor A Ferrari; Mona Bhatia; Sebastian Kelle Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 6.903
Authors: Carsten Tschöpe; Enrico Ammirati; Biykem Bozkurt; Alida L P Caforio; Leslie T Cooper; Stephan B Felix; Joshua M Hare; Bettina Heidecker; Stephane Heymans; Norbert Hübner; Sebastian Kelle; Karin Klingel; Henrike Maatz; Abdul S Parwani; Frank Spillmann; Randall C Starling; Hiroyuki Tsutsui; Petar Seferovic; Sophie Van Linthout Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 49.421