Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Angiography Screening and Submaximal Angioplasty for Symptomatic Vertebrobasilar Disease.

ABSTRACT: Background and Purpose- The VERiTAS (Vertebrobasilar Flow Evaluation and Risk of Transient Ischemic Attack and Stroke) study demonstrated posterior circulation distal flow status, determined by quantitative magnetic resonance angiography, is a robust predictor of vertebrobasilar stroke risk in patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic vertebrobasilar disease. Flow-compromised high-risk patients may benefit from flow-restoring endovascular procedures, such as submaximal angioplasty. In this study, we examine the cost-effectiveness of quantitative magnetic resonance angiography screening to identify patients who may benefit from submaximal angioplasty to restore vertebrobasilar flow. Methods- A Markov model was created comparing a no screening strategy with standard medical management alone and a screening strategy involving quantitative magnetic resonance angiography imaging and submaximal angioplasty for treatable patients with low vertebrobasilar flow for a 30-year time horizon. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and lifetime costs. Rates of stroke and death were obtained from VERiTAS data, and disability rates and costs were derived from VERiTAS and the literature. A sensitivity analysis was performed with periprocedural stroke rate from angioplasty the primary variable of interest. Results- At a 6% periprocedural stroke risk, the screening strategy saved an average of 0.364 QALYs per patient and a lifetime cost savings of $7312 versus the no screening strategy. Among patients with low flow suitable for intervention, the benefit was substantially higher, averaging 1.485 QALYs saved and lifetime cost savings of $21?294. Across the entire cohort, QALY savings were observed at the end of the first year and economic savings at year 6. The benefit of screening declined at higher periprocedural risk. Conclusions- Quantitative magnetic resonance angiography screening and submaximal angioplasty with 6% periprocedural risk in suitable patients are cost effective both in terms of QALY and lifetime costs for patients with symptomatic vertebrobasilar occlusive disease. With potential health and economic savings, a clinical trial examining the periprocedural risk of submaximal angioplasty is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00590980.

SUBMITTER: Esfahani DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6202172 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Angiography Screening and Submaximal Angioplasty for Symptomatic Vertebrobasilar Disease.

Esfahani Darian R DR Pandey Dilip D Du Xinjian X Rose-Finnell Linda L Charbel Fady T FT Derdeyn Colin P CP Amin-Hanjani Sepideh S

Stroke 20180801 8

Background and Purpose- The VERiTAS (Vertebrobasilar Flow Evaluation and Risk of Transient Ischemic Attack and Stroke) study demonstrated posterior circulation distal flow status, determined by quantitative magnetic resonance angiography, is a robust predictor of vertebrobasilar stroke risk in patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic vertebrobasilar disease. Flow-compromised high-risk patients may benefit from flow-restoring endovascular procedures, such as submaximal angioplasty. In this study ...[more]

PMID: 30012817

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of duplex ultrasonography, magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography, alone or in combination, for the assessment of lower limb peripheral arterial disease; to evaluate the impact of these assessment methods on management of patients and outcomes; and to evaluate the evidence regarding attitudes of patients to these technologies and summarise available data on adverse events.DesignSystematic review.MethodsSearches of 11 electronic databases (to April 2005), six journals, and reference lists of included papers for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Diagnostic accuracy studies were assessed for quality with the QUADAS checklist.Results107 studies met the inclusion criteria; 58 studies provided data on diagnostic accuracy, one on outcomes in patients, four on attitudes of patients, and 44 on adverse events. Quality assessment highlighted limitations in the methods and quality of reporting. Most of the included studies reported results by arterial segment, rather than by limb or by patient, which does not account for the clustering of segments within patients, so specificities may be overstated. For the detection of stenosis of 50% or more in a lower limb vessel, contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography had the highest diagnostic accuracy with a median sensitivity of 95% (range 92-99.5%) and median specificity of 97% (64-99%). The results were 91% (89-99%) and 91% (83-97%) for computed tomography angiography and 88% (80-98%) and 96% (89-99%) for duplex ultrasonography. A controlled trial reported no significant differences in outcomes in patients after treatment plans based on duplex ultrasonography alone or conventional contrast angiography alone, though in 22% of patients supplementary contrast angiography was needed to form a treatment plan. The limited evidence available suggested that patients preferred magnetic resonance angiography (with or without contrast) to contrast angiography, with half expressing no preference between magnetic resonance angiography or duplex ultrasonography (among patients with no contraindications for magnetic resonance angiography, such as claustrophobia). Where data on adverse events were available, magnetic resonance angiography was associated with the highest proportion of adverse events, but these were mild. The most severe adverse events, although rare, were mainly associated with contrast angiography.ConclusionsContrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography seems to be more specific than computed tomography angiography (that is, better at ruling out stenosis over 50%) and more sensitive than duplex ultrasonography (that is, better at ruling in stenosis over 50%) and was generally preferred by patients over contrast angiography. Computed tomography angiography was also preferred by patients over contrast angiography; no data on patients' preference between duplex ultrasonography and contrast angiography were available. Where available, contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography might be a viable alternative to contrast angiography.

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.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Angiography Screening and Submaximal Angioplasty for Symptomatic Vertebrobasilar Disease.

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Angiography Screening and Submaximal Angioplasty for Symptomatic Vertebrobasilar Disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets