Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cardiac CT: Comparative Cost-Effectiveness

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
CT of the Heart

Part of the book series: Contemporary Medical Imaging ((CMI))

  • 2761 Accesses

Abstract

Given the circumstance of limited resources, comparative effectiveness research (CER) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) became a popular and important tool in medicine, particular for the evaluation of novel diagnostic test strategies including cardiac CT. Several randomized controlled trials and CEA have been performed regarding the evaluation of patients with stable chest pain and/or with suspicion of acute coronary syndrome. Overall, the results suggest that cardiac CT – as an anatomical test – may serve as a cost-effective gatekeeper with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the willingness-to-pay threshold. However, these findings are based on many assumptions and particularly sensitive to the pretest probability for coronary artery disease. Further, based on the example of CEA regarding reporting of incidental findings in cardiac CT, it will be discussed that decision-making is not just a function of an economical evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. OECD.Stat, Health expenditure and financing. Joint OECD, EUROSTAT and WHO Health Accounts SHA Questionnaires (JHAQ). https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=SHA

  2. US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Health Expenditures 2015 Highlights. https://ccf.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/highlights.pdf

  3. Goehler A, Gazelle GS. Examining the use of comparative and cost-effectiveness analyses in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(5):939–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hanmer J, et al. Report of nationally representative values for the noninstitutionalized US adult population for 7 health-related quality-of-life scores. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26(4):391–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296(13):716–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Marseille E, et al. Thresholds for the cost-effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93:118–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Russell LB, et al. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(14):1172–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoffmann U, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(4):299–308.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Litt HI, et al. CT angiography for safe discharge of patients with possible acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(15):1393–403.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Khare RK, et al. Sixty-four-slice computed tomography of the coronary arteries: cost-effectiveness analysis of patients presenting to the emergency department with low-risk chest pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(7):623–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ladapo JA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of coronary MDCT in the triage of patients with acute chest pain. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(2):455–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Douglas PS, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1291–300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Investigators, S-H. CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease (SCOT-HEART): an open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9985):2383–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Min JK, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion imaging for near-term quality of life, cost and radiation exposure: a prospective multicenter randomized pilot trial. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012;6(4):274–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fordyce CB, Newby DE, Douglas PS. Diagnostic strategies for the evaluation of chest pain: clinical implications from SCOT-HEART and PROMISE. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(7):843–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. van Waardhuizen CN, et al. Diagnostic performance and comparative cost-effectiveness of non-invasive imaging tests in patients presenting with chronic stable chest pain with suspected coronary artery disease: a systematic overview. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2014;16(10):537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Genders TS, et al. The optimal imaging strategy for patients with stable chest pain: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(7):474–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ladapo JA, et al. Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of coronary computed tomography angiography in the evaluation of patients with chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(25):2409–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Min JK, et al. Costs and clinical outcomes in individuals without known coronary artery disease undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography from an analysis of Medicare category III transaction codes. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102(6):672–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hachamovitch R, et al. Patient management after noninvasive cardiac imaging results from SPARC (study of myocardial perfusion and coronary anatomy imaging roles in coronary artery disease). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(5):462–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Genders TS, et al. Coronary computed tomography versus exercise testing in patients with stable chest pain: comparative effectiveness and costs. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(4):1268–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Genders TS, et al. CT coronary angiography in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease: decision making from various perspectives in the face of uncertainty. Radiology. 2009;253(3):734–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dorenkamp M, et al. Direct costs and cost-effectiveness of dual-source computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography in patients with an intermediate pretest likelihood for coronary artery disease. Heart. 2012;98(6):460–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Moss AJ, et al. The updated NICE guidelines: cardiac CT as the first-line test for coronary artery disease. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep. 2017;10(5):15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Goehler A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of follow-up of pulmonary nodules incidentally detected on cardiac computed tomographic angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2014;130(8):668–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lu MT, et al. Lung cancer screening eligibility in the community: cardiovascular risk factors, coronary artery calcification, and cardiovascular events. Circulation. 2016;134(12):897–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kreisz FP, et al. The pre-test risk stratified cost-effectiveness of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in the detection of significant obstructive coronary artery disease in patients otherwise referred to invasive coronary angiography. Heart Lung Circ. 2009;18(3):200–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Min JK, et al. Cost-effectiveness of coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion SPECT for evaluation of patients with chest pain and no known coronary artery disease. Radiology. 2010;254(3):801–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Meyer M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of substituting dual-energy CT for SPECT in the assessment of myocardial perfusion for the workup of coronary artery disease. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(12):3719–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Genders TS, et al. Coronary computed tomography versus exercise testing in patients with stable chest pain: comparative effectiveness and costs. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(4):1268–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Agus AM, et al. The cost-effectiveness of cardiac computed tomography for patients with stable chest pain. Heart. 2016;102(5):356–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bertoldi EG, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests for assessing stable chest pain: modeled analysis of anatomical and functional strategies. Clin Cardiol. 2016;39(5):249–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Christopher L. Schlett

Authors
  1. Christopher L. Schlett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher L. Schlett .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Center for Advanced Imaging Research (CAIR), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    U. Joseph Schoepf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Humana Press

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schlett, C.L. (2019). Cardiac CT: Comparative Cost-Effectiveness. In: Schoepf, U. (eds) CT of the Heart. Contemporary Medical Imaging. Humana, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-237-7_52

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-237-7_52

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-60327-236-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-60327-237-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation