TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stress Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Stable Chest Pain Syndromes
AU - Ge, Yin
AU - Pandya, Ankur
AU - Steel, Kevin
AU - Bingham, Scott
AU - Jerosch-Herold, Michael
AU - Chen, Yi-Yun
AU - Mikolich, J Ronald
AU - Arai, Andrew E
AU - Bandettini, W Patricia
AU - Patel, Amit R
AU - Farzaneh-Far, Afshin
AU - Heitner, John F
AU - Shenoy, Chetan
AU - Leung, Steve W
AU - Gonzalez, Jorge A
AU - Shah, Dipan J
AU - Raman, Subha V
AU - Ferrari, Victor A
AU - Schulz-Menger, Jeanette
AU - Hachamovitch, Rory
AU - Stuber, Matthias
AU - Simonetti, Orlando P
AU - Kwong, Raymond Y
N1 - Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/5/8
Y1 - 2020/5/8
N2 - OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare, using results from the multicenter SPINS (Stress CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States) study, the incremental cost-effectiveness of a stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-first strategy against 4 other clinical strategies for patients with stable symptoms suspicious for myocardial ischemia: 1) immediate x-ray coronary angiography (XCA) with selective fractional flow reserve for all patients; 2) single-photon emission computed tomography; 3) coronary computed tomographic angiography with selective computed tomographic fractional flow reserve; and 4) no imaging.BACKGROUND: Stress CMR perfusion imaging has established excellent diagnostic utility and prognostic value in coronary artery disease (CAD), but its cost-effectiveness in current clinical practice has not been well studied in the United States.METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed to project health care costs and lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for symptomatic patients at presentation with a 32.4% prevalence of obstructive CAD. Rates of clinical events, costs, and quality-of-life values were estimated from SPINS and other published research. The analysis was conducted from a U.S. health care system perspective, with health and cost outcomes discounted annually at 3%.RESULTS: Using hard cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death or acute myocardial infarction) as the endpoint, total costs per person were lowest for the no-imaging strategy ($16,936) and highest for the immediate XCA strategy ($20,929). Lifetime QALYs were lowest for the no-imaging strategy (12.72050) and highest for the immediate XCA strategy (12.76535). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the CMR-based strategy compared with the no-imaging strategy was $52,000/QALY, whereas the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the immediate XCA strategy was $12 million/QALY compared with CMR. Results were sensitive to variations in model inputs for prevalence of disease, hazard rate ratio for treatment of CAD, and annual discount rate.CONCLUSIONS: Prior to invasive XCA, stress CMR can be a cost-effective gatekeeping tool in patients at risk for obstructive CAD in the United States. (Stress CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States [SPINS] Study; NCT03192891.
AB - OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare, using results from the multicenter SPINS (Stress CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States) study, the incremental cost-effectiveness of a stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-first strategy against 4 other clinical strategies for patients with stable symptoms suspicious for myocardial ischemia: 1) immediate x-ray coronary angiography (XCA) with selective fractional flow reserve for all patients; 2) single-photon emission computed tomography; 3) coronary computed tomographic angiography with selective computed tomographic fractional flow reserve; and 4) no imaging.BACKGROUND: Stress CMR perfusion imaging has established excellent diagnostic utility and prognostic value in coronary artery disease (CAD), but its cost-effectiveness in current clinical practice has not been well studied in the United States.METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed to project health care costs and lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for symptomatic patients at presentation with a 32.4% prevalence of obstructive CAD. Rates of clinical events, costs, and quality-of-life values were estimated from SPINS and other published research. The analysis was conducted from a U.S. health care system perspective, with health and cost outcomes discounted annually at 3%.RESULTS: Using hard cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death or acute myocardial infarction) as the endpoint, total costs per person were lowest for the no-imaging strategy ($16,936) and highest for the immediate XCA strategy ($20,929). Lifetime QALYs were lowest for the no-imaging strategy (12.72050) and highest for the immediate XCA strategy (12.76535). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the CMR-based strategy compared with the no-imaging strategy was $52,000/QALY, whereas the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the immediate XCA strategy was $12 million/QALY compared with CMR. Results were sensitive to variations in model inputs for prevalence of disease, hazard rate ratio for treatment of CAD, and annual discount rate.CONCLUSIONS: Prior to invasive XCA, stress CMR can be a cost-effective gatekeeping tool in patients at risk for obstructive CAD in the United States. (Stress CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States [SPINS] Study; NCT03192891.
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.02.029
DO - 10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.02.029
M3 - Article
C2 - 32417337
SN - 1936-878X
JO - JACC. Cardiovascular imaging
JF - JACC. Cardiovascular imaging
ER -
