Economic impact of contrast stress echocardiography on the diagnosis and initial treatment of patients with suspected coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE To estimate the impact of contrast stress echocardiography on resource use in the treatment of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS Fifty-nine patients with suspected CAD underwent nuclear perfusion imaging and contrast echocardiography examination. Further treatment was planned after each test and a final treatment was recommended after reviewing the results of both examinations. Medical resources and productivity losses were then collected for a 3-month follow-up period. RESULTS Diagnosis was possible in 96.6% of patients with nuclear perfusion imaging and 93.2% with contrast echocardiography, resulting in a cost per successful diagnosis of $637 (Can) and $476 (Can), respectively. For the majority of patients (74%), both tests provided the same result, but for 12 patients nuclear imaging suggested abnormal perfusion, whereas contrast echocardiography indicated normal function and for 2 patients it was the opposite situation. Per-patient costs for the total patient population decreased from $316 (Can) after nuclear perfusion imaging to $250 (Can) when results from both tests were known. Three-month follow-up societal costs were $441 (Can) per patient, with hospitalization contributing 58% of this total cost. CONCLUSION Contrast echocardiography has a similar success rate to nuclear perfusion imaging in diagnosing CAD, but has a 28% lower cost and has the potential of additional cost savings through the elimination of further diagnostic tests.