Inproceedings: An article in a conference proceedings.
Abstract (Abstract): shot summary in a article that contain essentials elements presented during a scientific conference, lecture or from a poster.
Comparativecost-effectivenessanalyses of cardiacmagneticresonanceimaging versus invasive coronary angiography combined with fractional flow reserve testing to diagnose ischemia in coronary artery disease
Title of the conference
11th Annual Meeting of the Working Group on Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the European Society of Cardiology
Florence, Italy, May 23-25, 2013
European Heart Journal : Cardiovascular Imaging
Introduction: According to guidelines, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) should undergo revascularization if myocardial ischemia is present. While coronary angiography (CXA) allows the morphological assessment of CAD, the fractional flow reserve (FFR) has proved to be a complementary invasive test to assess the functional significance of CAD, i.e. to detect ischemia. Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) has turned out to be a robust non-invasive technique to assess myocardial ischemia. The objective: is to compare the cost-effectiveness ratio - defined as the costs per patient correctly diagnosed - of two algorithms used to diagnose hemodynamically significant CAD in relation to the pretest likelihood of CAD: 1) aCMRto assess ischemia before referring positive patients to CXA (CMR + CXA), 2) a CXA in all patients combined with a FFR test in patients with angiographically positive stenoses (CXA + FFR). Methods: The costs, evaluated from the health care system perspective in the Swiss, German, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) contexts, included public prices of the different tests considered as outpatient procedures, complications' costs and costs induced by diagnosis errors (false negative). The effectiveness criterion wasthe ability to accurately identify apatient with significantCAD.Test performancesused in the model were based on the clinical literature. Using a mathematical model, we compared the cost-effectiveness ratio for both algorithms for hypothetical patient cohorts with different pretest likelihood of CAD. Results: The cost-effectiveness ratio decreased hyperbolically with increasing pretest likelihood of CAD for both strategies. CMR + CXA and CXA + FFR were equally costeffective at a pretest likelihood of CAD of 62% in Switzerland, 67% in Germany, 83% in the UK and 84% in the US with costs of CHF 5'794, Euros 1'472, £ 2'685 and $ 2'126 per patient correctly diagnosed. Below these thresholds, CMR + CXA showed lower costs per patient correctly diagnosed than CXA + FFR. Implications for the health care system/professionals/patients/society These results facilitate decision making for the clinical use of new generations of imaging procedures to detect ischemia. They show to what extent the cost-effectiveness to diagnose CAD depends on the prevalence of the disease.
Ischemia , Coronary artery disease , Heart muscle ischemia , Angiocardiography , Fractional flow reserve , Cardiovascular magnetic resonance , Society , Cardiology
Last modification date