Advertisement

Cardiac CT: Comparative Cost-Effectiveness

  • Christopher L. SchlettEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Medical Imaging book series (CMI)

Abstract

Given the circumstance of limited resources, comparative effectiveness research (CER) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) became a popular and important tool in medicine, particular for the evaluation of novel diagnostic test strategies including cardiac CT. Several randomized controlled trials and CEA have been performed regarding the evaluation of patients with stable chest pain and/or with suspicion of acute coronary syndrome. Overall, the results suggest that cardiac CT – as an anatomical test – may serve as a cost-effective gatekeeper with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the willingness-to-pay threshold. However, these findings are based on many assumptions and particularly sensitive to the pretest probability for coronary artery disease. Further, based on the example of CEA regarding reporting of incidental findings in cardiac CT, it will be discussed that decision-making is not just a function of an economical evaluation.

Keywords

Comparative effectiveness research Cost-effectiveness analysis Costs Health outcome Cardiac CT CT angiography Acute chest pain Stable chest pain Incidental findings 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    OECD.Stat, Health expenditure and financing. Joint OECD, EUROSTAT and WHO Health Accounts SHA Questionnaires (JHAQ). https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=SHA
  2. 2.
    US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Health Expenditures 2015 Highlights. https://ccf.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/highlights.pdf
  3. 3.
    Goehler A, Gazelle GS. Examining the use of comparative and cost-effectiveness analyses in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(5):939–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanmer J, et al. Report of nationally representative values for the noninstitutionalized US adult population for 7 health-related quality-of-life scores. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26(4):391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296(13):716–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marseille E, et al. Thresholds for the cost-effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93:118–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Russell LB, et al. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(14):1172–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoffmann U, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(4):299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Litt HI, et al. CT angiography for safe discharge of patients with possible acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(15):1393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khare RK, et al. Sixty-four-slice computed tomography of the coronary arteries: cost-effectiveness analysis of patients presenting to the emergency department with low-risk chest pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(7):623–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ladapo JA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of coronary MDCT in the triage of patients with acute chest pain. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(2):455–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Douglas PS, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Investigators, S-H. CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease (SCOT-HEART): an open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9985):2383–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Min JK, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion imaging for near-term quality of life, cost and radiation exposure: a prospective multicenter randomized pilot trial. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012;6(4):274–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fordyce CB, Newby DE, Douglas PS. Diagnostic strategies for the evaluation of chest pain: clinical implications from SCOT-HEART and PROMISE. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(7):843–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Waardhuizen CN, et al. Diagnostic performance and comparative cost-effectiveness of non-invasive imaging tests in patients presenting with chronic stable chest pain with suspected coronary artery disease: a systematic overview. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2014;16(10):537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Genders TS, et al. The optimal imaging strategy for patients with stable chest pain: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(7):474–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ladapo JA, et al. Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of coronary computed tomography angiography in the evaluation of patients with chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(25):2409–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Min JK, et al. Costs and clinical outcomes in individuals without known coronary artery disease undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography from an analysis of Medicare category III transaction codes. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102(6):672–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hachamovitch R, et al. Patient management after noninvasive cardiac imaging results from SPARC (study of myocardial perfusion and coronary anatomy imaging roles in coronary artery disease). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(5):462–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Genders TS, et al. Coronary computed tomography versus exercise testing in patients with stable chest pain: comparative effectiveness and costs. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(4):1268–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Genders TS, et al. CT coronary angiography in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease: decision making from various perspectives in the face of uncertainty. Radiology. 2009;253(3):734–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dorenkamp M, et al. Direct costs and cost-effectiveness of dual-source computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography in patients with an intermediate pretest likelihood for coronary artery disease. Heart. 2012;98(6):460–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moss AJ, et al. The updated NICE guidelines: cardiac CT as the first-line test for coronary artery disease. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep. 2017;10(5):15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goehler A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of follow-up of pulmonary nodules incidentally detected on cardiac computed tomographic angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2014;130(8):668–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lu MT, et al. Lung cancer screening eligibility in the community: cardiovascular risk factors, coronary artery calcification, and cardiovascular events. Circulation. 2016;134(12):897–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kreisz FP, et al. The pre-test risk stratified cost-effectiveness of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in the detection of significant obstructive coronary artery disease in patients otherwise referred to invasive coronary angiography. Heart Lung Circ. 2009;18(3):200–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Min JK, et al. Cost-effectiveness of coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion SPECT for evaluation of patients with chest pain and no known coronary artery disease. Radiology. 2010;254(3):801–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meyer M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of substituting dual-energy CT for SPECT in the assessment of myocardial perfusion for the workup of coronary artery disease. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(12):3719–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Genders TS, et al. Coronary computed tomography versus exercise testing in patients with stable chest pain: comparative effectiveness and costs. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(4):1268–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Agus AM, et al. The cost-effectiveness of cardiac computed tomography for patients with stable chest pain. Heart. 2016;102(5):356–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bertoldi EG, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests for assessing stable chest pain: modeled analysis of anatomical and functional strategies. Clin Cardiol. 2016;39(5):249–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Medical Center FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations