Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stress Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Stable Chest Pain Syndromes

Yin Ge, Ankur Pandya, Kevin Steel, Scott Bingham, Michael Jerosch-Herold, Yi Yun Chen, J. Ronald Mikolich, Andrew E. Arai, W. Patricia Bandettini, Amit R. Patel, Afshin Farzaneh-Far, John F. Heitner, Chetan Shenoy, Steve W. Leung, Jorge A. Gonzalez, Dipan J. Shah, Subha V. Raman, Victor A. Ferrari, Jeanette Schulz-Menger, Rory HachamovitchMatthias Stuber, Orlando P. Simonetti, Raymond Y. Kwong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare, using results from the multicenter SPINS (Stress CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States) study, the incremental cost-effectiveness of a stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)–first strategy against 4 other clinical strategies for patients with stable symptoms suspicious for myocardial ischemia: 1) immediate x-ray coronary angiography (XCA) with selective fractional flow reserve for all patients; 2) single-photon emission computed tomography; 3) coronary computed tomographic angiography with selective computed tomographic fractional flow reserve; and 4) no imaging. Background: Stress CMR perfusion imaging has established excellent diagnostic utility and prognostic value in coronary artery disease (CAD), but its cost-effectiveness in current clinical practice has not been well studied in the United States. Methods: A decision analytic model was developed to project health care costs and lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for symptomatic patients at presentation with a 32.4% prevalence of obstructive CAD. Rates of clinical events, costs, and quality-of-life values were estimated from SPINS and other published research. The analysis was conducted from a U.S. health care system perspective, with health and cost outcomes discounted annually at 3%. Results: Using hard cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death or acute myocardial infarction) as the endpoint, total costs per person were lowest for the no-imaging strategy ($16,936) and highest for the immediate XCA strategy ($20,929). Lifetime QALYs were lowest for the no-imaging strategy (12.72050) and highest for the immediate XCA strategy (12.76535). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the CMR-based strategy compared with the no-imaging strategy was $52,000/QALY, whereas the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the immediate XCA strategy was $12 million/QALY compared with CMR. Results were sensitive to variations in model inputs for prevalence of disease, hazard rate ratio for treatment of CAD, and annual discount rate. Conclusions: Prior to invasive XCA, stress CMR can be a cost-effective gatekeeping tool in patients at risk for obstructive CAD in the United States. (Stress CMR Perfusion Imaging in the United States [SPINS] Study; NCT03192891

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1505-1517
Number of pages13
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
Volume13
Issue number7
DOIs
StateE-pub ahead of print - May 1 2020

Keywords

  • cost-effectiveness
  • noninvasive test
  • stress cardiac MRI

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stress Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Stable Chest Pain Syndromes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this