Cost-Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance and Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography for Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease in Germany

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have demonstrated a superior diagnostic accuracy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to determine the comparative cost-effectiveness of CMR versus single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).

METHODS: Based on Bayes’ theorem, a mathematical model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness and utility of CMR with SPECT in patients with suspected CAD. Invasive coronary angiography served as the standard of reference. Effectiveness was defined as the accurate detection of CAD, and utility as the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Model input parameters were derived from the literature, and the cost analysis was conducted from a German health care payer’s perspective. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS: Reimbursement fees represented only a minor fraction of the total costs incurred by a diagnostic strategy. Increases in the prevalence of CAD were generally associated with improved cost-effectiveness and decreased costs per utility unit (DeltaQALY). By comparison, CMR was consistently more cost-effective than SPECT, and showed lower costs per QALY gained. Given a CAD prevalence of 0.50, CMR was associated with total costs of [euro sign]6,120 for one patient correctly diagnosed as having CAD and with [euro sign]2,246 per DeltaQALY gained versus [euro sign]7,065 and [euro sign]2,931 for SPECT, respectively. Above a threshold value of CAD prevalence of 0.60, proceeding directly to invasive angiography was the most cost-effective approach.

CONCLUSIONS: In patients with low to intermediate CAD probabilities, CMR is more cost-effective than SPECT. Moreover, lower costs per utility unit indicate a superior clinical utility of CMR. 

PMID: 23574690

Posted in Health Policy, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Nuclear Imaging and tagged , , , , , , .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *