Aims The study aims to determine the direct costs and comparative cost-effectiveness of latest-generation dual-source computed tomography (DSCT) and invasive coronary angiography for diagnosing coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients suspected of having this disease.
Methods The study was based on a previously elaborated cohort with an intermediate pretest likelihood for CAD and on complementary clinical data. Cost calculations were based on a detailed analysis of direct costs, and generally accepted accounting principles were applied. Based on Bayes' theorem, a mathematical model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of both diagnostic approaches. Total costs included direct costs, induced costs and costs of complications. Effectiveness was defined as the ability of a diagnostic test to accurately identify a patient with CAD.
Results Direct costs amounted to €98.60 for DSCT and to €317.75 for invasive coronary angiography. Analysis of model calculations indicated that cost-effectiveness grew hyperbolically with increasing prevalence of CAD. Given the prevalence of CAD in the study cohort (24%), DSCT was found to be more cost-effective than invasive coronary angiography (€970 vs €1354 for one patient correctly diagnosed as having CAD). At a disease prevalence of 49%, DSCT and invasive angiography were equally effective with costs of €633. Above a threshold value of disease prevalence of 55%, proceeding directly to invasive coronary angiography was more cost-effective than DSCT.
Conclusions With proper patient selection and consideration of disease prevalence, DSCT coronary angiography is cost-effective for diagnosing CAD in patients with an intermediate pretest likelihood for it. However, the range of eligible patients may be smaller than previously reported.
- Dual-source computed tomography
- coronary angiography
- coronary artery disease
- cost analysis
- CT scanning
- public health
- imaging and diagnostics
- fractional flow reserve
Statistics from Altmetric.com
MD and KB contributed equally to this work.
Competing interests MD, CRB and AWL have received consulting and lecture fees from Siemens Healthcare.
Ethics approval The present study is a cost-effectiveness analysis based on a previously elaborated patient cohort. Approval for this prior study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Munich.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.