Dataset Information

Evidence-based cardiovascular magnetic resonance cost-effectiveness calculator for the detection of significant coronary artery disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although prior reports have evaluated the clinical and cost impacts of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for low-to-intermediate-risk patients with suspected significant coronary artery disease (CAD), the cost-effectiveness of CMR compared to relevant comparators remains poorly understood. We aimed to summarize the cost-effectiveness literature on CMR for CAD and create a cost-effectiveness calculator, useable worldwide, to approximate the cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) of CMR and relevant comparators with context-specific patient-level and system-level inputs.

Methods

We searched the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and PubMed for cost-per-QALY or cost-per-life-year-saved studies of CMR to detect significant CAD. We also developed a linear regression meta-model (CMR Cost-Effectiveness Calculator) based on a larger CMR cost-effectiveness simulation model that can approximate CMR lifetime discount cost, QALY, and cost effectiveness compared to relevant comparators [such as single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)] or invasive coronary angiography.

Results

CMR was cost-effective for evaluation of significant CAD (either health-improving and cost saving or having a cost-per-QALY or cost-per-life-year result lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold) versus its relevant comparator in 10 out of 15 studies, with 3 studies reporting uncertain cost effectiveness, and 2 studies showing CCTA was optimal. Our cost-effectiveness calculator showed that CCTA was not cost-effective in the US compared to CMR when the most recent publications on imaging performance were included in the model.

Conclusions

Based on current world-wide evidence in the literature, CMR usually represents a cost-effective option compared to relevant comparators to assess for significant CAD.

SUBMITTER: Pandya A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8734365 | 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:ObjectiveTo identify the key drivers of cost-effectiveness for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) when patients activate the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) pathway.DesignEconomic decision models for two patient subgroups populated from secondary sources, each with a 1 year time horizon from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services in the UK.SettingUsual care (with or without CMR) in the NHS.ParticipantsPatients who activated the PPCI pathway, and for Model 1: underwent an emergency coronary angiogram and PPCI, and were found to have multivessel coronary artery disease. For Model 2: underwent an emergency coronary angiogram and were found to have unobstructed coronary arteries.InterventionsModel 1 (multivessel disease) compared two different ischaemia testing methods, CMR or fractional flow reserve (FFR), versus stress echocardiography. Model 2 (unobstructed arteries) compared CMR with standard echocardiography versus standard echocardiography alone.Main outcome measuresKey drivers of cost-effectiveness for CMR, incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.ResultsIn both models, the incremental costs and QALYs between CMR (or FFR, Model 1) versus no CMR (stress echocardiography, Model 1 and standard echocardiography, Model 2) were small (CMR: -£64 (95% CI -£232 to £187)/FFR: £360 (95% CI -£116 to £844) and CMR/FFR: 0.0012 QALYs (95% CI -0.0076 to 0.0093)) and (£98 (95% CI -£199 to £488) and 0.0005 QALYs (95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0077)), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the tests was the key driver of cost-effectiveness for both patient groups.ConclusionsIf CMR were introduced for all subgroups of patients who activate the PPCI pathway, it is likely that diagnostic accuracy would be a key determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Further research is needed to definitively answer whether revascularisation guided by CMR or FFR leads to different clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies have established the prognostic value of vasodilator stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in broad population of patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD), but this specific population of asymptomatic patients with known CAD have never been formally evaluated. To assess the long-term prognostic value of vasodilator stress perfusion CMR in asymptomatic patients with obstructive CAD.MethodsBetween 2009 and 2011, consecutive asymptomatic patients with obstructive CAD referred for vasodilator stress CMR were followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined by cardiovascular mortality or recurrent non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI). Uni- and multivariable Cox regressions were performed to determine the prognostic value of myocardial ischemia and myocardial infarction defined by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) with ischemic pattern.ResultsAmong 1529 asymptomatic patients with obstructive CAD, 1342 (87.8%; 67.7 ± 10.5 years, 82.0% males) completed the follow-up (median 8.3 years), and 195 had MACE (14.5%). Patients without stress-induced myocardial ischemia had a low annualized rate of MACE (2.4%), whereas the annualized rate of MACE was higher for patients with mild, moderate, or severe ischemia (7.3%, 16.8%, and 42.2%, respectively; ptrend < 0.001). Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, myocardial ischemia and LGE were associated with MACE (hazard ratio, HR 2.52; 95% CI 1.90-3.34 and HR 2.04; 95% CI 1.38-3.03, respectively; both p < 0.001). In multivariable stepwise Cox regression, myocardial ischemia and LGE were independent predictors of MACE (HR 2.80 95% CI 2.10-3.73, p < 0.001 and HR 1.51; 95% CI 1.01-2.27, p = 0.045; respectively). The addition of myocardial ischemia and LGE led to improved model discrimination for MACE (change in C statistic from 0.61 to 0.68; NRI = 0.207; IDI = 0.021).ConclusionsVasodilator stress CMR-induced myocardial ischemia and LGE are good long-term predictors for the incidence of MACE in asymptomatic patients with obstructive CAD.

Project description:Background: Epidemiological characteristics and prognostic profiles of patients with newly diagnosed coronary artery disease (CAD) are heterogeneous. Therefore, providing individualized cardiovascular (CV) risk stratification and tailored prevention is crucial. Objective: Phenotypic unsupervised clustering integrating clinical, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) data were used to unveil pathophysiological differences between subgroups of patients with newly diagnosed CAD. Materials and Methods: Between 2008 and 2020, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed obstructive CAD on CCTA and further referred for vasodilator stress CMR were followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined by cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction. For this exploratory work, a cluster analysis was performed on clinical, CCTA, and CMR variables, and associations between phenogroups and outcomes were assessed. Results: Among 2,210 patients who underwent both CCTA and CMR, 2,015 (46% men, mean 70 ± 12 years) completed follow-up [median 6.8 (IQR 5.9-9.2) years], in which 277 experienced a MACE (13.7%). Three mutually exclusive and clinically distinct phenogroups (PG) were identified based upon unsupervised hierarchical clustering of principal components: (PG1) CAD in elderly patients with few traditional risk factors; (PG2) women with metabolic syndrome, calcified plaques on CCTA, and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); (PG3) younger men smokers with proximal non-calcified plaques on CCTA, myocardial scar, and reduced LVEF. Using survival analysis, the occurrence of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality (all p < 0.001) differed among the three PG, in which PG3 had the worse prognosis. In each PG, inducible ischemia was associated with MACE [PG1, Hazards Ratio (HR) = 3.09, 95% CI, 1.70-5.62; PG2, HR = 3.62, 95% CI, 2.31-5.7; PG3, HR = 3.55, 95% CI, 2.3-5.49; all p < 0.001]. The study presented some key limitations that may impact generalizability. Conclusions: Cluster analysis of clinical, CCTA, and CMR variables identified three phenogroups of patients with newly diagnosed CAD that were associated with distinct clinical and prognostic profiles. Inducible ischemia assessed by stress CMR remained associated with the occurrence of MACE within each phenogroup. Whether automated unsupervised phenogrouping of CAD patients may improve clinical decision-making should be further explored in prospective studies.

Project description:BackgroundStress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) offers assessment of ventricular function, myocardial perfusion and viability in a single examination to detect coronary artery disease (CAD). We developed an in-scanner exercise stress CMR (ExCMR) protocol using supine cycle ergometer and aimed to examine the diagnostic value of a multiparametric approach in patients with suspected CAD, compared with invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference gold standard.MethodsIn this single-centre prospective study, patients who had symptoms of angina and at least one cardiovascular disease risk factor underwent both ExCMR and invasive angiography with FFR. Rest-based left ventricular function (ejection fraction, regional wall motion abnormalities), tissue characteristics and exercise stress-derived (perfusion defects, inducible regional wall motion abnormalities and peak exercise cardiac index percentile-rank) CMR parameters were evaluated in the study.ResultsIn the 60 recruited patients with intermediate CAD risk, 50% had haemodynamically significant CAD based on FFR. Of all the CMR parameters assessed, the late gadolinium enhancement, stress-inducible regional wall motion abnormalities, perfusion defects and peak exercise cardiac index percentile-rank were independently associated with FFR-positive CAD. Indeed, this multiparametric approach offered the highest incremental diagnostic value compared to a clinical risk model (χ2 for the diagnosis of FFR-positive increased from 7.6 to 55.9; P < 0.001) and excellent performance [c-statistic area under the curve 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94-1.00)] in discriminating between FFR-normal and FFR-positive patients.ConclusionThe study demonstrates the clinical potential of using in-scanner multiparametric ExCMR to accurately diagnose CAD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03217227, Registered 11 July 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03217227?id=NCT03217227&draw=2&rank=1&load=cart.