Cost-effectiveness of stress echocardiography and exercise tolerance tests as screening in asymptomatic adults before starting physical activity.

AIMS: Previous studies on exercise tolerance screening in asymptomatic individuals before starting physical activity were not cost-effective due to low specificity. However, given progress in diagnosing and treating coronary artery disease (CAD), a reevaluation of this approach is justified. We aimed to examine whether stress echocardiography (SE) would be cost-effective.

METHODS AND RESULTS: The study was conducted on asymptomatic individuals with no known coronary disease. The decision tree had two arms: in one arm, the subjects underwent stress echocardiography (SE) as a screening test before starting physical activity, and in the other, they did not. The probabilities and utilities of variables in the decision tree were taken from medical literature, and the costs of treatments were obtained from the Israeli Ministry of Health Tarif (HealthCare in Israel is universal, participation in one of four official health insurance organizations is compulsory, and "supplementary insurance" is optional). A 5-year Markov model and Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 iterations were used to assess cost-effectiveness from the insurer's perspective. The variables that had the most significant impact on cost-effectiveness were the prior risk of coronary disease and the frequency of physical activity in the population under study. When cost-effectiveness assessment of SE was conducted in subjects receiving optimal medical therapy (OMT) and revascularization either transcutaneously or with bypass surgery, both groups had almost identical benefits, with a slight advantage for those who did not undergo SE. However, the cost was higher for subjects who underwent SE, and the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) favored the No-SE group. On the other hand, when subjects only received OMT without therapeutic catheterization or bypass surgery, a cost-effectiveness assessment of SE demonstrated a lower cost and higher benefit in the group that underwent SE. In fact, SE was found to be absolutely dominant, with a negative ICER of $(-)27,644, which means that performing SE not only adds effectiveness but also saves expenses. Finally, a cost-effectiveness evaluation was conducted to compare the benefits of performing exercise tolerance testing (ETT) without stress echocardiography in subjects receiving OMT without therapeutic catheterization or bypass surgery. The results showed that the group that underwent ETT had a slightly higher benefit at a higher cost, with an ICER of $1804. This value is much lower than a WTP (willingness-to-pay) of $50,000 per year.

CONCLUSIONS: Performing SE as a screening test before starting physical activity in asymptomatic individuals is not cost-effective when the therapeutic options include revascularization. However, when the therapeutic policy is medical therapy without revascularization - as recommended in current guidelines - performing SE screening tests improves subjects' utility and results in financial savings. Carrying out ETT also results in improved utility that is inferior to SE as a screening test. At the same time, the ICER for ETT is still much smaller than the WTP, so performing ETT is worthwhile in cases where SE is unavailable.