Browsing by Author "Schwitter, Juerg"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evidence-based cardiovascular magnetic resonance cost-effectiveness calculator for the detection of significant coronary artery disease
    (BMC, 2022) Pandya, Ankur; Yu, Yuan‑Jui; Ge, Yin; Nagel, Eike; Kwong, Raymond Y.; Bakar, Rafidah Abu; Grizzard, John D.; Merkler, Alexander E.; Ntusi, Ntobeko; Petersen, Steffen E.; Rashedi, Nina; Schwitter, Juerg; Selvanayagam, Joseph B.; White, James A.; Carr, James; Raman, Subha V.; Simonetti, Orlando P.; Bucciarelli‑Ducci, Chiara; Sierra‑Galan, Lilia M.; Ferrari, Victor A.; Bhatia, Mona; Kelle, Sebastian; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Although prior reports have evaluated the clinical and cost impacts of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for low-to-intermediate-risk patients with suspected significant coronary artery disease (CAD), the cost-effectiveness of CMR compared to relevant comparators remains poorly understood. We aimed to summarize the cost-effectiveness literature on CMR for CAD and create a cost-effectiveness calculator, useable worldwide, to approximate the cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) of CMR and relevant comparators with context-specific patient-level and system-level inputs. Methods: We searched the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and PubMed for cost-per-QALY or cost-per-life-year-saved studies of CMR to detect significant CAD. We also developed a linear regression meta-model (CMR Cost-Effectiveness Calculator) based on a larger CMR cost-effectiveness simulation model that can approximate CMR lifetime discount cost, QALY, and cost effectiveness compared to relevant comparators [such as single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)] or invasive coronary angiography. Results: CMR was cost-effective for evaluation of significant CAD (either health-improving and cost saving or having a cost-per-QALY or cost-per-life-year result lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold) versus its relevant comparator in 10 out of 15 studies, with 3 studies reporting uncertain cost effectiveness, and 2 studies showing CCTA was optimal. Our cost-effectiveness calculator showed that CCTA was not cost-effective in the US compared to CMR when the most recent publications on imaging performance were included in the model. Conclusions: Based on current world-wide evidence in the literature, CMR usually represents a cost-effective option compared to relevant comparators to assess for significant CAD.