Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Cost evaluation of cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus coronary angiography for the diagnostic work-up of coronary artery disease: application of the European Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance registry data to the German, United Kingdom, Swiss, and United States health care systems


Moschetti, Karine; Muzzarelli, Stefano; Pinget, Christophe; Wagner, Anja; Pilz, Günther; Wasserfallen, Jean-Blaise; Schulz-Menger, Jeanette; Nothnagel, Detle; Dill, Torsten; Frank, Herbert; Lombardi, Massimo; Bruder, Oliver; Mahrholdt, Heiko; Schwitter, Jürg (2012). Cost evaluation of cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus coronary angiography for the diagnostic work-up of coronary artery disease: application of the European Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance registry data to the German, United Kingdom, Swiss, and United States health care systems. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 14:35.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has favorable characteristics for diagnostic evaluation and risk stratification of patients with known or suspected CAD. CMR utilization in CAD detection is growing fast. However, data on its cost-effectiveness are scarce. The goal of this study is to compare the costs of two strategies for detection of significant coronary artery stenoses in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD): 1) Performing CMR first to assess myocardial ischemia and/or infarct scar before referring positive patients (defined as presence of ischemia and/or infarct scar to coronary angiography (CXA) versus 2) a hypothetical CXA performed in all patients as a single test to detect CAD. METHODS: A subgroup of the European CMR pilot registry was used including 2,717 consecutive patients who underwent stress-CMR. From these patients, 21% were positive for CAD (ischemia and/or infarct scar), 73% negative, and 6% uncertain and underwent additional testing. The diagnostic costs were evaluated using invoicing costs of each test performed. Costs analysis was performed from a health care payer perspective in German, United Kingdom, Swiss, and United States health care settings. RESULTS: In the public sectors of the German, United Kingdom, and Swiss health care systems, cost savings from the CMR-driven strategy were 50%, 25% and 23%, respectively, versus outpatient CXA. If CXA was carried out as an inpatient procedure, cost savings were 46%, 50% and 48%, respectively. In the United States context, cost savings were 51% when compared with inpatient CXA, but higher for CMR by 8% versus outpatient CXA. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that from an economic perspective, the use of CMR should be encouraged as a management option for patients with suspected CAD.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has favorable characteristics for diagnostic evaluation and risk stratification of patients with known or suspected CAD. CMR utilization in CAD detection is growing fast. However, data on its cost-effectiveness are scarce. The goal of this study is to compare the costs of two strategies for detection of significant coronary artery stenoses in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD): 1) Performing CMR first to assess myocardial ischemia and/or infarct scar before referring positive patients (defined as presence of ischemia and/or infarct scar to coronary angiography (CXA) versus 2) a hypothetical CXA performed in all patients as a single test to detect CAD. METHODS: A subgroup of the European CMR pilot registry was used including 2,717 consecutive patients who underwent stress-CMR. From these patients, 21% were positive for CAD (ischemia and/or infarct scar), 73% negative, and 6% uncertain and underwent additional testing. The diagnostic costs were evaluated using invoicing costs of each test performed. Costs analysis was performed from a health care payer perspective in German, United Kingdom, Swiss, and United States health care settings. RESULTS: In the public sectors of the German, United Kingdom, and Swiss health care systems, cost savings from the CMR-driven strategy were 50%, 25% and 23%, respectively, versus outpatient CXA. If CXA was carried out as an inpatient procedure, cost savings were 46%, 50% and 48%, respectively. In the United States context, cost savings were 51% when compared with inpatient CXA, but higher for CMR by 8% versus outpatient CXA. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that from an economic perspective, the use of CMR should be encouraged as a management option for patients with suspected CAD.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
27 citations in Web of Science®
30 citations in Scopus®
66 citations in Microsoft Academic
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

90 downloads since deposited on 28 Feb 2013
44 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Cardiocentro Ticino
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2012
Deposited On:28 Feb 2013 16:20
Last Modified:17 Feb 2018 01:29
Publisher:BioMed Central
ISSN:1097-6647
OA Status:Gold
Free access at:PubMed ID. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-14-35
PubMed ID:22697303

Download

Download PDF  'Cost evaluation of cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus coronary angiography for the diagnostic work-up of coronary artery disease: application of the European Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance registry data to the German, United Kingdom, Swiss, and United States health care systems'.
Preview
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 686kB
View at publisher
Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)