Mira Salih1, Justin M Moore2, Christopher S Ogilvy2. 1. Neurosurgical Service, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Brain Aneurysm Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Electronic address: wshali@bidmc.harvard.edu. 2. Neurosurgical Service, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Brain Aneurysm Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and computed tomographic angiography (CTA) are used to identify the cause of nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). There is no consensus on which to choose as the first diagnostic tool. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of CTA versus DSA as a primary tool for identifying the cause of nontraumatic SAH. METHODS: A decision analysis model was built to simulate patients undergoing DSA or CTA as a primary diagnostic tool for the cause of nontraumatic SAH. The input data for the study were extracted from literature. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: In the base case calculation, it cost $1261.82 less and yielded 0.0001 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) when DSA was used as a primary diagnostic imaging tool for nontraumatic SAH. Choosing DSA as a primary tool was cost-effective in more than 65% of iterations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Deterministic sensitivity analyses show when the probability of using endovascular treatment is >47.2%, choosing DSA is more cost-effective; otherwise, CTA is more optimal. CTA is more cost-effective when the cost for DSA >2.6 × CTA + $600. CONCLUSIONS: Based on current literature and our model DSA as a primary diagnostic tool for the cause of nontraumatic SAH is more cost-effective. However, in clinical practice physicians can choose either DSA or CTA according to the scale of endovascular procedures used in their center, as well as the cost correlation between CTA and DSA, which varies among institutions.
BACKGROUND: Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and computed tomographic angiography (CTA) are used to identify the cause of nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). There is no consensus on which to choose as the first diagnostic tool. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of CTA versus DSA as a primary tool for identifying the cause of nontraumatic SAH. METHODS: A decision analysis model was built to simulate patients undergoing DSA or CTA as a primary diagnostic tool for the cause of nontraumatic SAH. The input data for the study were extracted from literature. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: In the base case calculation, it cost $1261.82 less and yielded 0.0001 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) when DSA was used as a primary diagnostic imaging tool for nontraumatic SAH. Choosing DSA as a primary tool was cost-effective in more than 65% of iterations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Deterministic sensitivity analyses show when the probability of using endovascular treatment is >47.2%, choosing DSA is more cost-effective; otherwise, CTA is more optimal. CTA is more cost-effective when the cost for DSA >2.6 × CTA + $600. CONCLUSIONS: Based on current literature and our model DSA as a primary diagnostic tool for the cause of nontraumatic SAH is more cost-effective. However, in clinical practice physicians can choose either DSA or CTA according to the scale of endovascular procedures used in their center, as well as the cost correlation between CTA and DSA, which varies among institutions.