Cost-effectiveness of functional cardiac imaging in the diagnostic work-up of coronary heart disease

Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging compared to common strategies in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has established exceptional diagnostic utility and prognostic value in coronary artery disease (CAD). An assessment of the current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CMR in patients referred for the investigation of CAD is essential for developing an economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CMR in CAD. We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science core collection, Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), and health technology assessment, to identify relevant literature. After removing duplicates and screening the title/abstract, a total of 13 articles were deemed eligible for full-text assessment. We included studies that reported one or more of the following outcomes: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALYs), cost per life year gained, sensitivity and specificity rate as the primary outcome, and health utility measures or health-related quality of life as the secondary outcome. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERS 2022 guidelines. The findings of this study demonstrate that in patients undergoing urgent percutaneous coronary intervention, CMR over a one-year and lifetime horizon leads to higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to current strategies in cases of multivessel disease. The systematic review indicates that the CMR-based strategy is more cost-effective when compared to standard methods such as single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), and coronary angiography (CA) (CMR = $19,273, SPECT = $19,578, CCTA = $19,886, and immediate CA = $20,929). The results also suggest that the CMR strategy can serve as a cost-effective gatekeeping tool for patients at risk of obstructive CAD. A CMR-based strategy for managing patients with suspected CAD is more cost-effective compared to both invasive and non-invasive strategies, particularly in real-world patient populations with a low to intermediate prevalence of the disease.

Health Economic Analysis of CMR: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Uptake of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in Australia has been limited by issues of cost and access. There is a need to inform future application of CMR by evaluating pertinent health economic literature. We sought to perform a systematic review on the health economic data as it pertains to CMR.

METHODS

Eight databases (biomedical/health economic) were searched for relevant articles highlighting economic evaluations of CMR. Following screening, studies that reported health economic outcomes (e.g., dollars saved, quality adjusted life years [QALY] and cost effectiveness ratios) were included. Data on cost effectiveness, clinical/disease characteristics, type of modelling were extracted and summarised.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight (38) articles informed the systematic review. Health economic models used to determine cost effectiveness included both trial-based studies (n=14) and Markov modelling (n=24). Comparative strategies ranged from nuclear imaging, stress echocardiography and invasive angiography. The disease states examined included coronary artery disease (23/38), acute coronary syndrome (3/38), heart failure (5/38) and miscellaneous (7/38). The majority of studies (n=29/38) demonstrated CMR as a strategy which is either economically dominant, cost-effective or cost-saving.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrates that CMR is cost-effective depending on diagnostic strategy, population and disease state. The lack of standardised protocols for application of CMR, economic models used and outcomes reported limits the ability to meta-analyse the available health economic data.

Heart Rate Recovery as a Predictor of Long-Term Adverse Events after Negative Exercise Testing in Patients with Chest Pain and Pre-Test Probability of Coronary Artery Disease from 15% to 65

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of patients with chest pain after a negative exercise test is good, but some adverse events occur in this low-risk group. The aim of our study was to identify predictors of long-term adverse events after a negative exercise test in patients with chest pain and a lower intermediate (15-65%) pre-test probability of coronary artery disease (CAD) and to assess the prognostic value of exercise electrocardiography and exercise stress echocardiography in this group of patients.

METHODS

We identified from our stress test laboratory database 862 patients with chest pain without previously known CAD and with a pre-test probability of CAD ranging from 15 to 65% (mean 41 ± 14%) who underwent exercise testing. Patients were followed for the occurrence of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and clinically guided revascularization.

RESULTS

During the median follow-up of 94 months, 87 patients (10.1%) had an adverse event (AE). A total of 30 patients died (3.5%), 23 patients suffered non-fatal MI (2.7%) and 34 patients (3.9%) had clinically guided revascularization (20 patients percutaneous and 14 patients surgical revascularizations). Male gender, age, the presence of diabetes and a slow heart rate recovery (HRR) in the first minute after exercise were independently related to the occurrence of AEs. Adverse events occurred in 10.3% of patients who were tested by exercise stress echocardiography and in 10.0% of those who underwent stress electrocardiography (p = 0.888).

CONCLUSION

The risk of AEs after negative exercise testing in patients with a pre-test probability of CAD of 15-65% is low. Male patients with a history of diabetes and slow HRR in the first minute after exercise have an increased risk of an adverse outcome.

Stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: a guide for the general cardiologist

Stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is an emerging non-invasive imaging technique for the assessment of known or suspected ischaemic heart disease (IHD). Stress CMR provides information on myocardial perfusion, wall motion, ventricular dimensions and volumes, as well as late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) scar imaging in a single test without ionising radiation. Data from numerous multicentre randomised studies show high diagnostic and prognostic utility, its efficacy as a gatekeeper to invasive coronary angiography and use for guiding coronary revascularisation decisions. Stress CMR is cost-effective across multiple healthcare settings, yet its uptake and usage varies worldwide and is an underutilised technology. New developments include rapid acquisition protocols, automated quantification of perfusion and myocardial blood flow, and artificial intelligence-aided automated analysis and reporting. Stress CMR is becoming more accessible and standardised around the globe and is ready for 'prime time' use in the non-invasive assessment of patients with suspected IHD.

The Future of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Clinical Trials

Over the past 2 decades, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has become an essential component of cardiovascular clinical care and contributed to imaging-guided diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathy, congenital heart disease, cardio-oncology, valvular, and vascular disease, amongst others. The widespread availability, safety, and capability of CMR to provide corresponding anatomical, physiological, and functional data in 1 imaging session can improve the design and conduct of clinical trials through both a reduction of sample size and provision of important mechanistic data that may augment clinical trial findings. Moreover, prospective imaging-guided strategies using CMR can enhance safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular pathways in clinical practice around the world. As the future of large-scale clinical trial design evolves to integrate personalized medicine, cost-effectiveness, and mechanistic insights of novel therapies, the integration of CMR will continue to play a critical role. In this document, the attributes, limitations, and challenges of CMR's integration into the future design and conduct of clinical trials will also be covered, and recommendations for trialists will be explored. Several prominent examples of clinical trials that test the efficacy of CMR-imaging guided pathways will also be discussed.

The Merits, Limitations, and Future Directions of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Cardiac MRI with a Focus on Coronary Artery Disease: A Literature Review

Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging has a wide range of clinical applications with a high degree of accuracy for many myocardial pathologies. Recent literature has shown great utility of CMR in diagnosing many diseases, often changing the course of treatment. Despite this, it is often underutilized possibly due to perceived costs, limiting patient factors and comfort, and longer examination periods compared to other imaging modalities. In this regard, we conducted a literature review using keywords “Cost-Effectiveness” and “Cardiac MRI” and selected articles from the PubMed MEDLINE database that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria to examine the cost-effectiveness of CMR. Our search result yielded 17 articles included in our review. We found that CMR can be cost-effective in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in select patient populations with various cardiac pathologies. Specifically, the use of CMR in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with a pretest probability below a certain threshold may be more cost-effective compared to patients with a higher pretest probability, although its use can be limited based on geographic location, professional society guidelines, and differing reimbursement patterns. In addition, a stepwise combination of different imaging modalities, with conjunction of AHA/ACC guidelines can further enhance the cost-effectiveness of CMR.

Cost-Minimization Analysis for Cardiac Revascularization in 12 Health Care Systems Based on the EuroCMR/SPINS Registries

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the costs of a noninvasive cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-guided strategy versus 2 invasive strategies with and without fractional flow reserve (FFR).

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major contributor to the public health burden. Stress perfusion CMR has excellent accuracy to detect CAD. International guidelines recommend as a first step noninvasive testing of patients in stable condition with known or suspected CAD. However, nonadherence in routine clinical practice is high.

METHODS

In the EuroCMR (European Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance) registry (n = 3,647, 59 centers, 18 countries) and the U.S.-based SPINS (Stress-CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States) registry (n = 2,349, 13 centers, 11 states), costs were calculated for 12 health care systems (8 in Europe, the United States, 2 in Latin America, and 1 in Asia). Costs included diagnostic examinations (CMR and x-ray coronary angiography [CXA] with and without FFR), revascularizations, and complications during 1-year follow-up. Seven subgroup analyses covered low- to high-risk cohorts. Patients with ischemia-positive CMR underwent CXA and revascularization at the treating physician's discretion (CMR+CXA strategy). In the hypothetical invasive CXA+FFR strategy, costs were calculated for initial CXA and FFR in vessels with ≥50% stenoses, assuming the same proportion of revascularizations and complications as with the CMR+CXA strategy and FFR-positive rates as given in the published research. In the CXA-only strategy, costs included CXA and revascularizations of ≥50% stenoses.

RESULTS

Consistent cost savings were observed for the CMR+CXA strategy compared with the CXA+FFR strategy in all 12 health care systems, ranging from 42% ± 20% and 52% ± 15% in low-risk EuroCMR and SPINS patients with atypical chest pain, respectively, to 31% ± 16% in high-risk SPINS patients with known CAD (P < 0.0001 vs 0 in all groups). Cost savings were even higher compared with CXA only, at 63% ± 11%, 73% ± 6%, and 52% ± 9%, respectively (P < 0.0001 vs 0 in all groups).

CONCLUSIONS

In 12 health care systems, a CMR+CXA strategy yielded consistent moderate to high cost savings compared with a hypothetical CXA+FFR strategy over the entire spectrum of risk. Cost savings were consistently high compared with CXA only for all risk groups.

30-minute CMR for common clinical indications: a Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance white paper

BACKGROUND

Despite decades of accruing evidence supporting the clinical utility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), adoption of CMR in routine cardiovascular practice remains limited in many regions of the world. Persistent use of long scan times of 60 min or more contributes to limited adoption, though techniques available on most scanners afford routine CMR examination within 30 min. Incorporating such techniques into standardize protocols can answer common clinical questions in daily practice, including those related to heart failure, cardiomyopathy, ventricular arrhythmia, ischemic heart disease, and non-ischemic myocardial injury. BODY: In this white paper, we describe CMR protocols of 30 min or shorter duration with routine techniques with or without stress perfusion, plus specific approaches in patient and scanner room preparation for efficiency. Minimum requirements for the scanner gradient system, coil hardware and pulse sequences are detailed. Recent advances such as quantitative myocardial mapping and other add-on acquisitions can be incorporated into the proposed protocols without significant extension of scan duration for most patients.

CONCLUSION

Common questions in clinical cardiovascular practice can be answered in routine CMR protocols under 30 min; their incorporation warrants consideration to facilitate increased access to CMR worldwide.

Evidence-based cardiovascular magnetic resonance cost-effectiveness calculator for the detection of significant coronary artery disease

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.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Non-invasive imaging software to assess the functional significance of coronary stenoses: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

QAngio^® XA 3D/QFR^® (three-dimensional/quantitative flow ratio) imaging software (Medis Medical Imaging Systems BV, Leiden, the Netherlands) and CAAS^® vFFR^® (vessel fractional flow reserve) imaging software (Pie Medical Imaging BV, Maastricht, the Netherlands) are non-invasive technologies to assess the functional significance of coronary stenoses, which can be alternatives to invasive fractional flow reserve assessment.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all evidence on QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR, including diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness, implementation and economic analyses. We searched MEDLINE and other databases to January 2020 for studies where either technology was used and compared with fractional flow reserve in patients with intermediate stenosis. The risk of bias was assessed with quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy were performed. Clinical and implementation outcomes were synthesised narratively. A simulation study investigated the clinical impact of using QAngio XA 3D/QFR. We developed a de novo decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR relative to invasive fractional flow reserve or invasive coronary angiography alone. Scenario analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the results to variation in the sources of data used to populate the model and alternative assumptions.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies (5440 patients) of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and three studies (500 patients) of CAAS vFFR were included. QAngio XA 3D/QFR had good diagnostic accuracy to predict functionally significant fractional flow reserve (≤ 0.80 cut-off point); contrast-flow quantitative flow ratio had a sensitivity of 85% (95% confidence interval 78% to 90%) and a specificity of 91% (95% confidence interval 85% to 95%). A total of 95% of quantitative flow ratio measurements were within 0.14 of the fractional flow reserve. Data on the diagnostic accuracy of CAAS vFFR were limited and a full meta-analysis was not feasible. There were very few data on clinical and implementation outcomes. The simulation found that quantitative flow ratio slightly increased the revascularisation rate when compared with fractional flow reserve, from 40.2% to 42.0%. Quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve resulted in similar numbers of subsequent coronary events. The base-case cost-effectiveness results showed that the test strategy with the highest net benefit was invasive coronary angiography with confirmatory fractional flow reserve. The next best strategies were QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR (without fractional flow reserve). However, the difference in net benefit between this best strategy and the next best was small, ranging from 0.007 to 0.012 quality-adjusted life-years (or equivalently £140-240) per patient diagnosed at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

LIMITATIONS

Diagnostic accuracy evidence on CAAS vFFR, and evidence on the clinical impact of QAngio XA 3D/QFR, were limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative flow ratio as measured by QAngio XA 3D/QFR has good agreement and diagnostic accuracy compared with fractional flow reserve and is preferable to standard invasive coronary angiography alone. It appears to have very similar cost-effectiveness to fractional flow reserve and, therefore, pending further evidence on general clinical benefits and specific subgroups, could be a reasonable alternative. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CAAS vFFR are uncertain. Randomised controlled trial evidence evaluating the effect of quantitative flow ratio on clinical and patient-centred outcomes is needed.

FUTURE WORK

Studies are required to assess the diagnostic accuracy and clinical feasibility of CAAS vFFR. Large ongoing randomised trials will hopefully inform the clinical value of QAngio XA 3D/QFR.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019154575.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 56. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Advancing Biomarker Development Through Convergent Engagement: Summary Report of the 2nd International Danube Symposium on Biomarker Development, Molecular Imaging and Applied Diagnostics; March 14-16, 2018; Vienna, Austria

Here, we report on the outcome of the 2nd International Danube Symposium on advanced biomarker development that was held in Vienna, Austria, in early 2018. During the meeting, cross-speciality participants assessed critical aspects of non-invasive, quantitative biomarker development in view of the need to expand our understanding of disease mechanisms and the definition of appropriate strategies both for molecular diagnostics and personalised therapies. More specifically, panelists addressed the main topics, including the current status of disease characterisation by means of non-invasive imaging, histopathology and liquid biopsies as well as strategies of gaining new understanding of disease formation, modulation and plasticity to large-scale molecular imaging as well as integrative multi-platform approaches. Highlights of the 2018 meeting included dedicated sessions on non-invasive disease characterisation, development of disease and therapeutic tailored biomarkers, standardisation and quality measures in biospecimens, new therapeutic approaches and socio-economic challenges of biomarker developments. The scientific programme was accompanied by a roundtable discussion on identification and implementation of sustainable strategies to address the educational needs in the rapidly evolving field of molecular diagnostics. The central theme that emanated from the 2nd Donau Symposium was the importance of the conceptualisation and implementation of a convergent approach towards a disease characterisation beyond lesion-counting "lumpology" for a cost-effective and patient-centric diagnosis, therapy planning, guidance and monitoring. This involves a judicious choice of diagnostic means, the adoption of clinical decision support systems and, above all, a new way of communication involving all stakeholders across modalities and specialities. Moreover, complex diseases require a comprehensive diagnosis by converging parameters from different disciplines, which will finally yield to a precise therapeutic guidance and outcome prediction. While it is attractive to focus on technical advances alone, it is important to develop a patient-centric approach, thus asking "What can we do with our expertise to help patients?"

Cardiac-CT and cardiac-MR cost-effectiveness: a literature review

Cardiovascular diseases are still among the first causes of death worldwide with a huge impact on healthcare systems. Within these conditions, the correct diagnosis of coronary artery disease with the most appropriate imaging-based evaluations is of utmost importance. The sustainability of the healthcare systems, considering the high economic burden of modern cardiac imaging equipments, makes cost-effective analysis an important tool, currently used for weighing different costs and health outcomes, when policy makers have to allocate funds and to prioritize interventions, getting the most out of their financial resources. This review aims at evaluating cost-effective analysis in the more recent literature, focused on the role of Calcium Score, coronary computed tomography angiography and cardiac magnetic resonance.

MRI perfusion in patients with stable chest-pain

Perfusion-cardiovascular MR (CMR) imaging has been shown to reliably identify patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD), who are at risk for future cardiac events and thus, allows for guiding therapy including revascularizations. Accordingly, it is an ideal test to exclude prognostically relevant coronary artery disease. Several guidelines, such as the ESC guidelines, currently recommend CMR as non-invasive testing in patients with stable chest pain. CMR has as an advantage over the more conventional pathways as it lacks radiation and it potentially reduces costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Diagnosing Coronary Artery Disease in the Australian Health Care System

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a major public health problem in Australia and globally. A variety of imaging techniques allow for both anatomical and functional assessment of CAD and selection of the optimal investigation pathway is challenging. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is not widely used in Australia, partly due to perceived cost and lack of Federal Government reimbursement compared to the alternative techniques. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic strategies in identifying significant CAD in patients with chest pain suggestive of angina using the evidence gathered in the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease 2 (CE-MARC trial), analysed from the Australian health care perspective.

METHODS

A decision analytic model coupled with three distinct Markov models allowed eight potential clinical investigation strategies to be considered; combinations of exercise electrocardiogram stress testing (EST), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), stress CMR, and invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Costs were from the Australian health care system in Australian dollars, and outcomes were measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. Parameter estimates were derived from the CE-MARC and EUropean trial on Reduction Of cardiac events with Perindopril in patients with stable coronary Artery disease (EUROPA) trials, and from reviews of the published literature.

RESULTS

The most cost-effective diagnostic strategy, based on a cost-effectiveness threshold of $45,000 to $75,000 per QALY gained, was EST, followed by stress CMR if the EST was positive or inconclusive, followed by ICA if the stress CMR was positive or inconclusive; this held true in the base case and the majority of scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This economic evaluation shows that an investigative strategy of stress CMR if EST is inconclusive or positive is the most cost-effective approach for diagnosing significant coronary disease in chest pain patients within the Australian health care system.

Cost-effectiveness for imaging stable ischemic disease

Stable ischemic heart disease remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Although there are multiple imaging modalities to diagnose and/or assist in the clinical management, the most cost-effective approach remains unclear. We reviewed the relevant and recent evidence-based clinical studies and trials to suggest the most cost-effective approach to stable ischemic heart disease. The limitations of these studies are discussed. Incorporating the results of recent multicenter trials, we suggest that for appropriate patients with coronary artery disease with any degree of stenosis or presence of coronary calcium, optimal medical therapy may be most cost-effective. Invasive coronary angiography and/or coronary revascularization would be primarily for non-responders or >/=50% left main stenosis. Stress cardiac magnetic imaging would be performed for those patients with non-diagnostic coronary CT angiography from motion and non-responders from optimal medical therapy in non-diagnostic coronary CT angiography group from high coronary calcium. These paths seem to be safe and cost-effective but requires modeling for confirmation.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance: Stressing the future

Non-invasive cardiac stress imaging plays a central role in the assessment of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. The current guidelines suggest estimation of the myocardial ischaemic burden as a criterion for revascularisation on prognostic grounds despite the lack of standardised reporting of the magnitude of ischaemia on various non-invasive imaging methods. Future studies should aim to accurately describe the relationship between myocardial ischaemic burden as assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging and mortality.