Dataset Information

Incremental cost-effectiveness of dobutamine stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients at intermediate risk for coronary artery disease.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The effectiveness of stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as a gatekeeper for coronary angiography (CA) has been established. Level five HTA studies according to the hierarchical model of diagnostic test evaluation are not available.

Methods

This cohort study included 1,158 consecutive patients (mean age 63 ± 11 years, 42 % women) presenting at our institution between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2004 with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) for an elective CA. The patients were assessed for eligibility and propensity score matching was applied to address selection bias regarding the patients' allocation to CMR or direct CA. Median patient follow-up was 7.9 years (95 % CI 7.8-8.0 years). The primary effect was calculated as relative survival difference. The cost unit calculation (per patient) at our institute was the source of costs.

Results

Survival was similar in CMR and CA (p = 0.139). Catheterizations ruling out CAD were significantly reduced by the CMR gate-keeper strategy. Patients with prior CMR had significantly lower costs at the initial hospital stay and at follow-up (CMR vs. CA, initial: 2,904 vs. 3,421, p = 0.018; follow-up: 2,045 vs. 3,318, p = 0.037). CMR was cost-effective in terms of a contribution of 12,466 per life year to cover a part of the CMR costs.

Conclusion

Stress CMR prior to CA was saving 12,466 of hospital costs per life year. Lower costs at follow-up suggest sustained cost-effectiveness of the CMR-guided strategy.

SUBMITTER: Petrov G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4544498 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccording to recent guidelines, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) should undergo revascularization if significant myocardial ischemia is present. Both, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) allow for a reliable ischemia assessment and in combination with anatomical information provided by invasive coronary angiography (CXA), such a work-up sets the basis for a decision to revascularize or not. The cost-effectiveness ratio of these two strategies is compared.MethodsStrategy 1) CMR to assess ischemia followed by CXA in ischemia-positive patients (CMR?+?CXA), Strategy 2) CXA followed by FFR in angiographically positive stenoses (CXA?+?FFR). The costs, evaluated from the third party payer perspective in Switzerland, Germany, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), included public prices of the different outpatient procedures and costs induced by procedural complications and by diagnostic errors. The effectiveness criterion was the correct identification of hemodynamically significant coronary lesion(s) (= significant CAD) complemented by full anatomical information. Test performances were derived from the published literature. Cost-effectiveness ratios for both strategies were compared for hypothetical cohorts with different pretest likelihood of significant CAD.ResultsCMR + CXA and CXA + FFR were equally cost-effective at a pretest likelihood of CAD of 62% in Switzerland, 65% in Germany, 83% in the UK, and 82% in the US with costs of CHF 5'794, € 1'517, £ 2'680, and $ 2'179 per patient correctly diagnosed. Below these thresholds, CMR + CXA showed lower costs per patient correctly diagnosed than CXA + FFR.ConclusionsThe CMR?+?CXA strategy is more cost-effective than CXA?+?FFR below a CAD prevalence of 62%, 65%, 83%, and 82% for the Swiss, the German, the UK, and the US health care systems, respectively. These findings may help to optimize resource utilization in the diagnosis of CAD.

Project description:BackgroundTraditional cardiac rehabilitation programs are centre-based and clinically supervised, with their safety and effectiveness well established. Notwithstanding the established benefits, cardiac rehabilitation remains underutilised. A possible alternative would be a hybrid approach where both centre-based and tele-based methods are combined to deliver cardiac rehabilitation to eligible patients. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness of a hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation and if it should be recommended to be implemented in the Australian context.MethodsFollowing a comprehensive literature search, we chose the Telerehab III trial intervention that investigated the effectiveness of a long-term hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation program. We developed a decision analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the Telerehab III trial using a Markov process. The model included stable cardiac disease and hospitalisation health states and simulations were run using one-month cycles over a five-year time horizon. The threshold for cost-effectiveness was set at $AU 28,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). For the base analysis, we assumed that 80% completed the programme. We tested the robustness of the results using probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses.ResultsTelerehab III intervention was more effective but more costly and was not cost-effective, at a threshold of $28,000 per QALY. For every 1,000 patients who undergo cardiac rehabilitation, employing the telerehabilitation intervention would cost $650,000 more, and 5.7 QALYs would be gained, over five years, compared to current practice. Under probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the intervention was cost-effective in only 18% of simulations. Similarly, if the intervention compliance was increased to 90%, it was still unlikely to be cost-effective.ConclusionHybrid cardiac telerehabilitation is highly unlikely to be cost-effective compared to the current practice in Australia. Exploration of alternative models of delivering cardiac telerehabilitation is still required. The results presented in this study are useful for policymakers wanting to make informed decisions about investment in hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation programs.

Project description:BackgroundMedical costs associated with cardiovascular disease are increasing considerably worldwide; therefore, an efficacious, cost-effective therapy which allows the effective use of medical resources is vital. There have been few economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), especially meta-analyses of medical cost versus patient outcome.MethodsThe target population in this meta-analysis included convalescent and comprehensive CR patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), the status most commonly observed postmyocardial infarction (MI). Here, we evaluated medical costs, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), cost-effectiveness, mortality, and life year (LY). Regarding cost-effectiveness analysis, we analyzed medical costs per QALY, medical costs per LY, and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). We then examined the differences in effects for the 2 treatment arms (CR vs. usual care (UC)) using the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD).ResultsWe reviewed 59 studies and identified 5 studies that matched our selection criteria. In total, 122,485 patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results revealed that the CR arm significantly improved QALY (SMD: -1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.69, -0.87) compared with UC. Although medical costs tended to be higher in the CR arm compared to the UC arm (SMD: 0.02; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.13), cost/QALY was significantly improved in the CR arm compared with the UC arm (SMD: -0.31; 95% CI: -0.53, -0.09). The ICURs for the studies (4 RCTs and 1 model analysis) were as follows: -48,327.6 USD/QALY; -5,193.8 USD/QALY (dominant, CR is cheaper and more effective than UC); and 4,048.0 USD/QALY, 17,209.4 USD/QALY, and 26,888.7 USD/QALY (<50,000 USD/QALY, CR is costlier but more effective than UC), respectively. Therefore, there were 2 dominant and 3 effective results.ConclusionsWhile there are some limitations, primarily regarding data sources, our results suggest that CR is potentially cost-effective.

Project description:Objectives: Guideline recommendations for patients with either a high or a low risk of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) are clear. However, the evidence for initial risk stratification in patients with an intermediate risk of CAD is still unclear, despite the availability of multiple non-invasive assessment strategies. The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence for this population to provide more informed recommendations. Background: A meta-analysis was performed to systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (pCMR) and dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) for the detection of relevant CAD. In contrast to previous work, this meta-analysis follows rigorous selection criteria in regards to the risk stratification and a narrowly prespecified definition of their invasive reference tests, resulting in unprecedentedly informative results for this reference group. Data Collection and Analysis: From the 5,634 studies identified, 1,306 relevant articles were selected after title screening and further abstract screening left 865 studies for full-text review. Of these, 47 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria resulting in a total sample size of 4,742 patients. Results: pCMR studies showed a superior sensitivity [0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-0.90) vs. 0.72 (95% CI: 0.61-0.81)], diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) [38 (95% CI: 29-49) vs. 20 (95% CI: 9-46)] and an augmented post-test probability [negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.14 (95% CI: 0.12-0.18) vs. 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.46)] as compared to DSE. Specificity was statistically indifferent [0.84 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87) vs. 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83-0.93)]. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that pCMR has a superior diagnostic test accuracy for relevant CAD compared to DSE. In patients with intermediate risk of CAD only pCMR can reliably rule out relevant stenosis. In this risk cohort, pCMR can be offered for initial risk stratification and guidance of further invasive treatment as it also rules in relevant CAD.

Project description:A recent large-scale clinical trial found that an initial invasive strategy does not improve cardiac outcomes beyond optimized medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Novel methods to stratify at-risk patients may refine therapeutic decisions to improve outcomes.In a cohort of 815 consecutive patients referred for evaluation of myocardial ischemia, we determined the net reclassification improvement of the risk of cardiac death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (major adverse cardiac events) incremental to clinical risk models, using guideline-based low (<1%), moderate (1% to 3%), and high (>3%) annual risk categories. In the whole cohort, inducible ischemia demonstrated a strong association with major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio=14.66; P<0.0001) with low negative event rates of major adverse cardiac events and cardiac death (0.6% and 0.4%, respectively). This prognostic robustness was maintained in patients with previous coronary artery disease (hazard ratio=8.17; P<0.0001; 1.3% and 0.6%, respectively). Adding inducible ischemia to the multivariable clinical risk model (adjusted for age and previous coronary artery disease) improved discrimination of major adverse cardiac events (C statistic, 0.81-0.86; P=0.04; adjusted hazard ratio=7.37; P<0.0001) and reclassified 91.5% of patients at moderate pretest risk (65.7% to low risk; 25.8% to high risk) with corresponding changes in the observed event rates (0.3%/y and 4.9%/y for low and high risk posttest, respectively). Categorical net reclassification index was 0.229 (95% confidence interval, 0.063-0.391). Continuous net reclassification improvement was 1.11 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.39).Stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging effectively reclassifies patient risk beyond standard clinical variables, specifically in patients at moderate to high pretest clinical risk and in patients with previous coronary artery disease.http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01821924.

Project description:ImportanceThe role of stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in clinical decision-making by reclassification of risk across American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline-recommended categories has not been established.ObjectiveTo examine the utility of stress CMR imaging for risk reclassification in patients without a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) who presented with suspected myocardial ischemia.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective, multicenter cohort study with median follow-up of 5.4 years (interquartile range, 4.6-6.9) was conducted at 13 centers across 11 US states. Participants included 1698 consecutive patients aged 35 to 85 years with 2 or more coronary risk factors but no history of CAD who presented with suspected myocardial ischemia to undergo stress CMR imaging. The study was conducted from February 18, 2019, to March 1, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresCardiovascular (CV) death and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI). Major adverse CV events (MACE) including CV death, nonfatal MI, hospitalization for heart failure or unstable angina, and late, unplanned coronary artery bypass graft surgery.ResultsOf the 1698 patients, 873 were men (51.4%); mean (SD) age was 62 (11) years, accounting for 67 CV death/nonfatal MIs and 190 MACE. Clinical models of pretest risk were constructed and patients were categorized using guideline-based categories of low (<1% per year), intermediate (1%-3% per year), and high (>3% year) risk. Stress CMR imaging provided risk reclassification across all baseline models. For CV death/nonfatal MI, adding stress CMR-assessed left ventricular ejection fraction, presence of ischemia, and late gadolinium enhancement to a model incorporating the validated CAD Consortium score, hypertension, smoking, and diabetes provided significant net reclassification improvement of 0.266 (95% CI, 0.091-0.441) and C statistic improvement of 0.086 (95% CI, 0.022-0.149). Stress CMR imaging reclassified 60.3% of patients in the intermediate pretest risk category (52.4% reclassified as low risk and 7.9% as high risk) with corresponding changes in the observed event rates of 0.6% per year for low posttest risk and 4.9% per year for high posttest risk. For MACE, stress CMR imaging further provided significant net reclassification improvement (0.361; 95% CI, 0.255-0.468) and C statistic improvement (0.092; 95% CI, 0.054-0.131), and reclassified 59.9% of patients in the intermediate pretest risk group (48.7% reclassified as low risk and 11.2% as high risk).Conclusions and relevanceIn this multicenter cohort of patients with no history of CAD presenting with suspected myocardial ischemia, stress CMR imaging reclassified patient risk across guideline-based risk categories, beyond clinical risk factors. The findings of this study support the value of stress CMR imaging for clinical decision-making, especially in patients at intermediate risk for CV death and nonfatal MI.