Open heart · 2022
Cost-effectiveness in diagnosis of stable angina patients: a decision-analytical modelling approach.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nazir Muhummad Sohaib, Rodriguez-Guadarrama Yael, Rua Tiago, Bui Khan Ha, Buylova Gola Anna, Chiribiri Amedeo, McCrone Paul, Plein Sven, Pennington Mark
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Given recent data on published diagnostic accuracies, this study sought to determine the most cost-effective diagnostic strategy for detection of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in stable angina patients using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard.
METHODS: A probabilistic decision-analytical model was developed which modelled a cohort of patients with stable angina. We investigated 17 diagnostic strategies between standalone and combination of different imaging tests to establish a correct diagnosis of CAD, using no testing as the baseline reference. These tests included CT coronary angiography (CTCA), stress echocardiography, CT-based FFR, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), positron emission tomography, ICA, and ICA with FFR. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as the additional cost per correct diagnosis.
RESULTS: SPECT followed by CTCA and ICA-FFR is the most cost-effective strategy between a cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) value of £1000-£3000 per correct diagnosis. CMR followed by CTCA and ICA-FFR is cost-effective within a CET range of £3000-£17 000 per correct diagnosis. CMR and ICA-FFR is cost-effective within a CET range of £17 000-£24 000. ICA-FFR as first line is the most-cost effective if the CET value exceeds the £24 000 per correct diagnosis. Sensitivity analysis showed that direct ICA-FFR may be cost-effective in patients with a high pre-test probability of CAD.
CONCLUSION: First-line testing with functional imaging is cost-effective at low to intermediate value of correct diagnosis in patients with low to intermediate risk of CAD. ICA is not cost effective although ICA-FFR may be at higher CET.
METHODS: A probabilistic decision-analytical model was developed which modelled a cohort of patients with stable angina. We investigated 17 diagnostic strategies between standalone and combination of different imaging tests to establish a correct diagnosis of CAD, using no testing as the baseline reference. These tests included CT coronary angiography (CTCA), stress echocardiography, CT-based FFR, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), positron emission tomography, ICA, and ICA with FFR. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as the additional cost per correct diagnosis.
RESULTS: SPECT followed by CTCA and ICA-FFR is the most cost-effective strategy between a cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) value of £1000-£3000 per correct diagnosis. CMR followed by CTCA and ICA-FFR is cost-effective within a CET range of £3000-£17 000 per correct diagnosis. CMR and ICA-FFR is cost-effective within a CET range of £17 000-£24 000. ICA-FFR as first line is the most-cost effective if the CET value exceeds the £24 000 per correct diagnosis. Sensitivity analysis showed that direct ICA-FFR may be cost-effective in patients with a high pre-test probability of CAD.
CONCLUSION: First-line testing with functional imaging is cost-effective at low to intermediate value of correct diagnosis in patients with low to intermediate risk of CAD. ICA is not cost effective although ICA-FFR may be at higher CET.