Differences in episode-based care costs for multidetector computed tomographic coronary angiography versus myocardial perfusion imaging for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease

Abstract Background: Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is a novel method for diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). The opportunity costs that favour MDCT over other CAD diagnostic methods is currently unknown. Methods: This study used an episodes of care cost model based on epidemiologic and economic data evaluating individuals without known CAD undergoing MDCT or myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS). It was a multicenter retrospective database review of medical and pharmacy-related claims linked by episodes of care from 2002 to 2005. CAD-related episodes of care costs were examined 1-year downstream for patients after initial MDCT that were matched to patients who underwent MPS. Results: After adjustment for patient factors, 1-year total CAD-related episodes of care costs for MDCT were 16.4% lower than MPS, by an average of $682 (95% confidence interval $14, $1,350) per patient. While costs per CAD-related episode were similar between MDCT and MPS groups ($4,284 vs. $4,277, p=0.08). Conclusions: Patients without known CAD who undergo MDCT as an initial diagnostic test, compared to MPS, incurred fewer CAD-related episodes of care and lower overall CAD-related costs.

[1]  L. Greenfield.  National health care expenditures. , 2010, Socioeconomic issues of health.

[2]  D. Berman,et al.  Prognostic value of multidetector coronary computed tomographic angiography for prediction of all-cause mortality. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Prognostic value of multislice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  Marco Valgimigli,et al.  Diagnostic performance of multislice spiral computed tomography of coronary arteries as compared with conventional invasive coronary angiography: a meta-analysis. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[5]  Peter J Pronovost,et al.  A systematic review of the Charlson comorbidity index using Canadian administrative databases: a perspective on risk adjustment in critical care research. , 2005, Journal of critical care.

[6]  E. Antman,et al.  ACC/AHA/ASNC guidelines for the clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging--executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASNC Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Cardiac Radionucl , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[7]  L. Bouter,et al.  How to measure comorbidity. a critical review of available methods. , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  W. Ray,et al.  Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of serious coronary heart disease: an observational cohort study ☆ , 2002 .

[9]  D. Berman,et al.  Methodological considerations in the assessment of noninvasive testing using outcomes research: pitfalls and limitations. , 2000, Progress in cardiovascular diseases.

[10]  Dove Hg,et al.  Episode Treatment Groups (ETGs): a patient classification system for measuring outcomes performance by episode of illness. , 2000 .

[11]  M Maclure,et al.  Use of comorbidity scores for control of confounding in studies using administrative databases. , 2000, International journal of epidemiology.

[12]  K. Carey,et al.  A multilevel modelling approach to analysis of patient costs under managed care. , 2000, Health economics.

[13]  Seward Wf.  National health expenditures. , 1998 .

[14]  Pontious Jm,et al.  Episode treatment groups: an illness classification and episode building system--Part II. , 1996 .

[15]  G Germano,et al.  Incremental value of prognostic testing in patients with known or suspected ischemic heart disease: a basis for optimal utilization of exercise technetium-99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography. , 1995, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  L. Krieger.  The Future of Health Policy , 1994 .

[17]  N. Breslow,et al.  Efficiency gains from the addition of controls to matched sets in cohort studies. , 1989, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  Udo Hoffmann,et al.  Characterization of non-calcified coronary atherosclerotic plaque by multi-detector row CT: comparison to IVUS. , 2007, Atherosclerosis.

[19]  M. T. Forthman,et al.  Episode Treatment Groups (ETGs): a patient classification system for measuring outcomes performance by episode of illness. , 2000, Topics in health information management.

[20]  W F Seward,et al.  National health expenditures. , 1998, Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons.

[21]  D. Dang,et al.  Episode treatment groups: an illness classification and episode building system--Part I. , 1996, Medical interface.

[22]  D. McKusick,et al.  National health expenditures projections through 2030 , 1992, Health care financing review.

[23]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.