The cost–effectiveness of diagnostic cardiac imaging for stable coronary artery disease

References

• Nichols M, Townsend N, Scarborough P, et al. European cardiovascular disease statistics 4th edition 2012: EuroHeart II. Eur Heart J 2013;34:3007
   Google Scholar
• Cassar A, Holmes DRJr, Rihal CS, et al. Chronic coronary artery disease: diagnosis and management. Mayo Clin Proc 2009;84(12):1130-46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoenig MR, Doust JA, Aroney CN, et al. Early invasive versus conservative strategies for unstable angina & non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the stent era. Cochrane Database System Rev 2006;(3):CD004815
   Google Scholar
• Wang K, Asinger RW, Marriott HJ. ST-segment elevation in conditions other than acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003;349(22):2128-35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohsaka S, Makaryus AN. Coronary angiography using noninvasive imaging techniques of cardiac CT and MRI. Curr Cardiol Rev 2008;4(4):323-30
   Google Scholar
• Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H, et al. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012). the Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). Eur Heart J 2012;33(13):1635-701
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Task Force M, Montalescot G, Sechtem U, et al. ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the task force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2013;34(38):2949-3003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodard PK, White RD, Abbara S, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria chronic chest pain-low to intermediate probability of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Radiol 2013;10(5):329-34
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Chest pain of recent onset (CG95). 2010. Available from: http://publications.nice.org.uk/chest-pain-of-recent-onset-cg95/guidance [Last accessed January 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Picano E, Vano E, Rehani MM, et al. The appropriate and justified use of medical radiation in cardiovascular imaging: a position document of the ESC Associations of Cardiovascular Imaging, Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Electrophysiology. Eur Heart J 2014;35(10):665-72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neglia D, Rovai D, Caselli C, et al. EVINCI Study Investigators. Detection of significant coronary artery disease by noninvasive anatomical and functional imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8(3):pii: e002179
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood JP, Marendia N, Younger JF, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet 2012;379:453-60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas PS, Hoffman U, Patel MR, et al. For the PROMISE Investigators. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2015;372(14):1291-300
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009;6(7):e1000100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry. Available from: https://research.tufts-nemc.org/cear4/Default.aspx [Last accessed March 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1997
   Google Scholar
• Amemiya S, Takao H. Computed tomographic coronary angiography for diagnosing stable coronary artery disease: a cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis. Circ J 2009;73(7):1263-70
   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
• Darlington M, Gueret P, Laissy JP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional invasive coronary angiography. Eur J Health Econ 2014. [Epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Dewey M, Hamm B. Cost effectiveness of coronary angiography and calcium scoring using CT and stress MRI for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Eur Radiol 2007;17:301-9
   Google Scholar
• Dorenkamp M, Bonaventura K, Sohns C, 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
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira AM, Marques H, Gonçalves PA, Cardim N. Cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic strategies in suspected stable coronary artery disease in Portugal. Arq Bras Cardiol 2014;102(4):391-402
   Google Scholar
• Genders TS, Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genders TSS, Ferket BS, Dedic A, 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
   Google Scholar
• Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, et al. Stress myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography is clinically effective and cost effective in risk stratification of patients with a high likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD) but no known CAD. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43(2):200-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernandez R, Vale L. The value of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in the diagnosis and management of angina and myocardial infarction: a probabilistic economic analysis. Med Decis Making 2007;27(6):772-88
   Google Scholar
• Hlatky MA, Shilane D, Hachamovitch R, et al. Economic outcomes in the study of myocardial perfusion and coronary anatomy imaging roles in coronary artery disease registry: the SPARC study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63(10):1002-8
   Google Scholar
• Iwata K, Ogasawara K. Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of stress myocardial perfusion MRI and SPECT in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Radiol Phys Technol 2013;6(1):28-34
   Google Scholar
• Kreisz FP, Merlin T, Moss J, 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladapo JA, Jaffer FA, Hoffmann U, 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
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowski M, Szwed H, Kowalik I. Searching for the optimal strategy for the diagnosis of stable coronary artery disease. Cost-effectiveness of the new algorithm. Cardiol J 2007;14(6):544-51
   Google Scholar
• Marwick TH, Shaw L, Case C, et al. Clinical and economic impact of exercise electrocardiography and exercise echocardiography in clinical practice. Eur Heart J 2003;24(12):1153-63
   Google Scholar
• Meyer M, Nance JWJr, Schoepf UJ, 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Min JK, Gilmore A, Budoff MJ, 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moir S, Shaw L, Haluska B, et al. Left ventricular opacification for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease with stress echocardiography: an angiographic study of incremental benefit and cost-effectiveness. Am Heart J 2007;154(3):510-18
   Google Scholar
• Moschetti K, Favre D, Pinget C, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness analyses of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and coronary angiography combined with fractional flow reserve for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2014;16:13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mowatt G, Vale L, Brazzelli M, et al. Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for the diagnosis and management of angina and myocardial infarction. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(30):iii-v
   Google Scholar
• Mowatt G, Cummins E, Waugh N, et al. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease. Health Technol Assess 2008;12(17):iii-v
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen LH, Olsen J, Markenvard J, et al. Effects on costs of frontline diagnostic evaluation in patients suspected of angina: coronary computed tomography angiography vs. conventional ischaemia testing. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;14(5):449-55
   Google Scholar
• Patel N, Pal RS, Flores F, Budoff M. Utility of cardiac computed tomography angiography to exclude clinically significant obstructive coronary artery disease in patients after myocardial perfusion imaging. Am J Cardiol 2012;109(2):165-8
   Google Scholar
• Petrov G, Kelle S, Fleck E, Wellnhofer E. Incremental cost-effectiveness of dobutamine stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients at intermediate risk for coronary artery disease. Clin Res Cardiol 2014. [Epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Sharples L, Hughes V, Crean A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of functional cardiac testing in the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease: a randomised controlled trial. The CECaT trial. Health Technol Assess 2007;11(49):iii-v
   Google Scholar
• Shaw LJ, Marwick TH, Berman DS, et al. Incremental cost-effectiveness of exercise echocardiography vs. SPECT imaging for the evaluation of stable chest pain. Eur Heart J 2006;27(20):2448-58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegrist PT, Husmann L, Knabenhans M, et al. (13)N-ammonia myocardial perfusion imaging with a PET/CT scanner: impact on clinical decision making and cost-effectiveness. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35(5):889-95
   Google Scholar
• Stacul F, Sironi D, Grisi G, et al. 64-Slice CT coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography: activity-based cost analysis. Radiol Med 2009;114(2):239-52
   Google Scholar
• Thom H, West NE, Hughes V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of initial stress cardiovascular MR, stress SPECT or stress echocardiography as a gate-keeper test, compared with upfront invasive coronary angiography in the investigation and management of patients with stable chest pain: mid-term outcomes from the CECaT randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2014;4(2):e003419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker S, Girardin F, McKenna C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease: An economic evaluation using data from the CE-MARC study. Heart 2013;99(12):873-81
   Google Scholar
• Wennike N, Shah BN, Boger E, et al. Stress echocardiography in the district hospital setting: a cost-saving analysis. Eur J Echocardiogr 2010;11(5):401-5
   Google Scholar
• Westwood M, Al M, Burgers L, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of new-generation computed tomography scanners for imaging in coronary artery disease and congenital heart disease: Somatom Definition Flash, Aquilion ONE, Brilliance iCT and Discovery CT750 HD. Health Technol Assess 2013;17(9):1-243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turchetti G, Spadoni E, Geisler EE. Health technology assessment. Evaluation of biomedical innovative technologies. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2010;29(39):70-6
   Google Scholar