Cost-impact of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with Fast-SENC compared to SPECT in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in the U.S

References

• Sanchis-Gomar F, Perez-Quilis C, Leischik R, et al. Epidemiology of coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndrome. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4:256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degrell P, Sorbets E, Feldman LJ, et al. Screening for coronary artery disease in asymptomatic individuals: why and how? Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;108:675–682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pizzi C, Xhyheri B, Costa GM, et al. Nonobstructive versus obstructive coronary artery disease in acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(12):pii:e004185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams A, Bojara W, Schunk K. Early diagnosis and treatment of coronary heart disease in asymptomatic subjects with advanced vascular atherosclerosis of the carotid artery (type III and IV b findings using ultrasound) and risk factors. Cardiol Res. 2018;9:22–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aroney CN. A suggested paradigm for coronary risk screening in asymptomatic persons–assessment of total coronary atheromatous burden. Heart Lung Circ. 2012;21:449–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauters C, Lemesle G. Screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2016;16:90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferket BS, Genders TS, Colkesen EB, et al. Systematic review of guidelines on imaging of asymptomatic coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:1591–1600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang FY, Huang BT, Lv WY, et al. The prognosis of patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease versus normal arteries determined by invasive coronary angiography or computed tomography coronary angiography: a systematic review. Medicine. 2016;95:e3117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah N, Kelly AM, Cox N, et al. Myocardial infarction in the "Young": risk factors, presentation, management and prognosis. Heart Lung Circ. 2016;25:955–960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace ML, Ricco JA, Barrett B. Screening strategies for cardiovascular disease in asymptomatic adults. Prim Care. 2014;41:371–397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelidis G, Giamouzis G, Karagiannis G, et al. SPECT and PET in ischemic heart failure. Heart Fail Rev. 2017;22:243–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holly TA, Abbott BG, Al-Mallah M, et al. Single photon-emission computed tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17:941–973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward RP, Al-Mallah MH, Grossman GB, et al. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology review of the ACCF/ASNC appropriateness criteria for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI). J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:e26–e38.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fornell D. Managing dose in PET and SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. Nuclear Imaging. 2015. Available from: https://www.dicardiology.com/article/managing-dose-pet-and-spect-myocardial-perfusion-imaging
   Google Scholar
• Danad I, Szymonifka J, Twisk JWR, et al. Diagnostic performance of cardiac imaging methods to diagnose ischaemia-causing coronary artery disease when directly compared with fractional flow reserve as a reference standard: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:991–998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henzlova MJ, Duvall WL, Einstein AJ, et al. ASNC imaging guidelines for SPECT nuclear cardiology procedures: stress, protocols, and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:606–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavrogeni S, Katsi V, Vartela V, et al. The emerging role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the evaluation of hypertensive heart disease. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017;17:132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavrogeni S, Markousis-Mavrogenis G, Markussis V, et al. The emerging role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of metabolic cardiomyopathies. Horm Metab Res. 2015;47:623–632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El Aidi H, Adams A, Moons KG, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging findings and the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with recent myocardial infarction or suspected or known coronary artery disease: a systematic review of prognostic studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1031–1045.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foley JR, Plein S, Greenwood JP. Assessment of stable coronary artery disease by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: current and emerging techniques. WJC. 2017;9:92–108.
   Google Scholar
• Gotschy A, Niemann M, Kozerke S, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance for the assessment of coronary artery disease. Int J Cardiol. 2015;193:84–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heydari B, Kwong RY, Jerosch-Herold M. Technical advances and clinical applications of quantitative myocardial blood flow imaging with cardiac MRI. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;57:615–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwata K, Nakagawa S, Ogasawara K. The prognostic value of normal stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2014;38:36–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motwani M, Swoboda PP, Plein S, et al. Role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the management of patients with stable coronary artery disease. Heart. 2018;104(11):888–894. DOI:10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311658
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigues P, Joshi A, Williams H, et al. Diagnosis and prognosis in sudden cardiac arrest survivors without coronary artery disease: utility of a clinical approach using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10:e006709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OHTAS. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10:1–38.
   Google Scholar
• Lipinski MJ, McVey CM, Berger JS, et al. Prognostic value of stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:826–838.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George P, Sebastian K, Eckart F, et al. Incremental cost-effectiveness of dobutamine stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients at intermediate risk for coronary artery disease. Clin Res Cardiol. 2015;104:401–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giusca S, Korosoglou G, Zieschang V, et al. Reproducibility study on myocardial strain assessment using fast-SENC cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. England: Nature Publishing Group; 2018. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-32226-3
   Google Scholar
• Schuster A, Hor KN, Kowallick JT, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking: concepts and clinical applications. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:e004077.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oyama-Manabe N, Ishimori N, Sugimori H, et al. Identification and further differentiation of subendocardial and transmural myocardial infarction by fast strain-encoded (SENC) magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:2362–2368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mølstad P. Survival difference between coronary bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2015;49:177–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1503–1516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1291–1300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berrington de Gonzalez A, Kim KP, Smith-Bindman R, et al. Myocardial perfusion scans: projected population cancer risks from current levels of use in the United States. Circulation. 2010;122:2403–2410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley SM, Spertus JA, Kennedy KF, et al. Patient selection for diagnostic coronary angiography and hospital-level percutaneous coronary intervention appropriateness: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1630–1639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afana M, Brinjikji W, Cloft H, et al. Hospitalization costs for acute myocardial infarction patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States are substantially higher than Medicare payments. Clin Cardiol. 2015;38:13–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boldt J, Leber AW, Bonaventura K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease in Germany. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15:30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez JA, Lipinski MJ, Flors L, et al. Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiography, computed tomography perfusion, and computed tomography-fractional flow reserve in functional myocardial ischemia assessment versus invasive fractional flow reserve. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116:1469–1478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korosoglou G, Gitsioudis G, Voss A, et al. Strain-encoded cardiac magnetic resonance during high-dose dobutamine stress testing for the estimation of cardiac outcomes: comparison to clinical parameters and conventional wall motion readings. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1140–1149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders GD, Patel MR, Chatterjee R. et al. Noninvasive technologies for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in women: future research needs. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013.
   Google Scholar
• George RT, Mehra VC, Chen MY, et al. Myocardial CT perfusion imaging and SPECT for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a head-to-head comparison from the CORE320 multicenter diagnostic performance study. Radiology. 2015;274:626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavakol M, Ashraf S, Brener SJ. Risks and complications of coronary angiography: a comprehensive review. Glob J Health Sci. 2012;4:65–93.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Applegate RJ, Grabarczyk MA, Little WC, et al. Vascular closure devices in patients treated with anticoagulation and IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors during percutaneous revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:78–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boccalandro F, Assali A, Fujise K, et al. Vascular access site complications with the use of closure devices in patients treated with platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during rescue angioplasty. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent. 2004;63:284–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeni H, Axel M, Ornek A, et al. Clinical and subclinical femoral vascular complications after deployment of two different vascular closure devices or manual compression in the setting of coronary intervention. Int J Med Sci. 2016;13:255–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Upponi SS, Ganeshan AG, Warakaulle DR, et al. Angioseal versus manual compression for haemostasis following peripheral vascular diagnostic and interventional procedures–a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Radiol. 2007;61:332–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dangas G, Mehran R, Kokolis S, et al. Vascular complications after percutaneous coronary interventions following hemostasis with manual compression versus arteriotomy closure devices. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:638–641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen CP, Huang HK, Hsia CH, et al. Short-term safety and efficacy of femoral vascular closure after percutaneous coronary intervention with combination of the boomerang (TM) device and intravenous protamine sulfate. Acta Cardiol Sin. 2013;29:531–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalsch HI, Eggebrecht H, Mayringer S, et al. Randomized comparison of effects of suture-based and collagen-based vascular closure devices on post-procedural leg perfusion. Clin Res Cardiol. 2008;97:43–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn ZM, Kumar M, Hollander G, et al. Safety and efficacy of the Perclose suture-mediated closure device after diagnostic and interventional catheterizations in a large consecutive population. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent. 2002;55:8–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cura, FA, SR Kapadia, PL L’Allier, et al. Safety of femoral closure devices after percutaneous coronary interventions in the era of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa platelet blockade. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86(7):780–782, a9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arora N, Matheny ME, Sepke C, et al. A propensity analysis of the risk of vascular complications after cardiac catheterization procedures with the use of vascular closure devices. Am Heart J. 2007;153:606–611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen DS, Marso SP, Lindsey JB, et al. Comparison of bleeding complications using arterial closure device versus manual compression by propensity matching in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:1619–1623.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assali AR, Sdringola S, Moustapha A, et al. Outcome of access site in patients treated with platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the era of closure devices. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent. 2003;58:1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidi VD, Matheny ME, Govindarajulu US, et al. Vascular closure device failure in contemporary practice. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:837–844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theodos G, Raymond C, Becker MC, et al. Arteriotomy closure device safety after percutaneous coronary intervention in the direct thrombin inhibitor era: a comparative study. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent.. 2013;81:294–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen HY, Tisminetzky M, Yarzebski J, et al. Decade-long trends in the frequency of 90-day rehospitalizations after hospital discharge for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117:743–748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papafaklis MI, Mavrogiannis MC, Stone PH. Identifying the progression of coronary artery disease: prediction of cardiac events. Cont Cardiol Edu. 2016;2(2):105–114.
   Google Scholar
• Khera R, Jain S, Pandey A, et al. Comparison of readmission rates after acute myocardial infarction in 3 patient age groups (18 to 44, 45 to 64, and >/=65 Years) in the United States. Am J Cardiol. 2017;120:1761–1767.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Resnic FS, Arora N, Matheny M, et al. A cost-minimization analysis of the angio-seal vascular closure device following percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:766–770.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitch K, Iwasaki K, Pyenson B. Cost drivers of cancer care: a retrospective analysis of medicare and commercially insured population claim data 2004–2014. Milliman Report. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Wittels EH, Hay JW, Gotto AM. Jr. Medical costs of coronary artery disease in the United States. Am J Cardiol. 1990;65:432–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karmpaliotis D, Lembo N, Kalynych A, et al. Development of a high-volume, multiple-operator program for percutaneous chronic total coronary occlusion revascularization: procedural, clinical, and cost-utilization outcomes. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent. 2013;82:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar