AUTHORS: Ge Y, Pandya A, Steel K, Bingham S, Jerosch-Herold M, Chen YY, Mikolich R, Arai A, Bandettini P, Patel A, Farzaneh-Far A, Heitner J, Shenoy C, Leung S, Gonzalez J, Shah D, Raman S, Ferrari V, Schulz-Menger J, Hachamovitch R, Stuber M, Simonetti O, Kwong R

JACC Cardiovasc Imaging, 13(7): 1505-1517, July 2020

ABSTRACT

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.

Download PDF

BibTex

Module: