Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of stand-alone or combined non-invasive imaging tests for the diagnosis of stable coronary artery disease: results from the EVINCI study.

ABSTRACT: AIM:This study aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different non-invasive imaging-guided strategies for the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in a European population of patients from the Evaluation of Integrated Cardiac Imaging in Ischemic Heart Disease (EVINCI) study. METHODS AND RESULTS:Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 350 patients (209 males, mean age 59?±?9 years) with symptoms of suspected stable CAD undergoing computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) and at least one cardiac imaging stress-test prior to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and in whom imaging exams were analysed at dedicated core laboratories. Stand-alone stress-tests or combined non-invasive strategies, when the first exam was uncertain, were compared. The diagnostic end-point was obstructive CAD defined as?>?50% stenosis at quantitative ICA in the left main or at least one major coronary vessel. Effectiveness was defined as the percentage of correct diagnosis (cd) and costs were calculated using country-specific reimbursements. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were obtained using per-patient data and considering "no-imaging" as reference. The overall prevalence of obstructive CAD was 28%. Strategies combining CTCA followed by stress ECHO, SPECT, PET, or stress CMR followed by CTCA, were all cost-effective. ICERs values indicated cost saving from -?969€/cd for CMR-CTCA to -?1490€/cd for CTCA-PET, -?3092€/cd for CTCA-SPECT and -?3776€/cd for CTCA-ECHO. Similarly when considering early revascularization as effectiveness measure. CONCLUSION:In patients with suspected stable CAD and low prevalence of disease, combined non-invasive strategies with CTCA and stress-imaging are cost-effective as gatekeepers to ICA and to select candidates for early revascularization.

SUBMITTER: Lorenzoni V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6856023 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis of stand-alone or combined non-invasive imaging tests for the diagnosis of stable coronary artery disease: results from the EVINCI study.

Lorenzoni Valentina V Bellelli Stefania S Caselli Chiara C Knuuti Juhani J Underwood Stephen Richard SR Neglia Danilo D Turchetti Giuseppe G

The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care 20190813 9

<h4>Aim</h4>This study aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different non-invasive imaging-guided strategies for the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in a European population of patients from the Evaluation of Integrated Cardiac Imaging in Ischemic Heart Disease (EVINCI) study.<h4>Methods and results</h4>Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 350 patients (209 males, mean age 59 ± 9 years) with symptoms of suspected stable CAD undergoing computed tomography c ...[more]

PMID: 31410670

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network reported that left ventricular reverse remodeling at 2 years did not differ between patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation randomized to coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair (n = 150) or coronary artery bypass grafting alone (n = 151). To address health resource use implications, we compared costs and quality-adjusted survival.MethodsWe used individual patient data from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial on survival, hospitalizations, quality of life, and US hospitalization costs to estimate cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years. A microsimulation model was developed to extrapolate to 10 years. Bootstrap and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty.ResultsIn-hospital costs were $59,745 for coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair versus $51,326 for coronary artery bypass grafting alone (difference $8419; 95% uncertainty interval, 2259-18,757). Two-year costs were $81,263 versus $67,341 (difference 13,922 [2370 to 28,888]), and quality-adjusted life years were 1.35 versus 1.30 (difference 0.05; -0.04 to 0.14), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $308,343/quality-adjusted life year for coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair. At 10 years, its costs remained higher ($107,733 vs $88,583, difference 19,150 [-3866 to 56,826]) and quality-adjusted life years showed no difference (-0.92 to 0.87), with 5.08 versus 5.08. The likelihood that coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair would be considered cost-effective at 10 years based on a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100K/quality-adjusted life year did not exceed 37%. Only when this procedure reduces the death rate by a relative 5% will the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio fall below $100K/quality-adjusted life year.ConclusionsThe addition of mitral valve repair to coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation is unlikely to be cost-effective. Only if late mortality benefits can be demonstrated will it meet commonly used cost-effectiveness criteria.

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 analysis of stand-alone or combined non-invasive imaging tests for the diagnosis of stable coronary artery disease: results from the EVINCI study.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis of stand-alone or combined non-invasive imaging tests for the diagnosis of stable coronary artery disease: results from the EVINCI study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets