Shaw L J, Hachamovitch R, Berman D S, Marwick T H, Lauer M S, Heller G V, Iskandrian A E, Kesler K L, Travin M I, Lewin H C, Hendel R C, Borges-Neto S, Miller D D
Division of Cardiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, USA.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999 Mar;33(3):661-9. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(98)00606-8.
The study aim was to determine observational differences in costs of care by the coronary disease diagnostic test modality.
A number of diagnostic strategies are available with few data to compare the cost implications of the initial test choice.
We prospectively enrolled 11,372 consecutive stable angina patients who were referred for stress myocardial perfusion tomography or cardiac catheterization. Stress imaging patients were matched by their pretest clinical risk of coronary disease to a series of patients referred to cardiac catheterization. Composite 3-year costs of care were compared for two patients management strategies: 1) direct cardiac catheterization (aggressive) and 2) initial stress myocardial perfusion tomography and selective catheterization of high risk patients (conservative). Analysis of variance techniques were used to compare costs, adjusting for treatment propensity and pretest risk.
Observational comparisons of aggressive as compared with conservative testing strategies reveal that costs of care were higher for direct cardiac catheterization in all clinical risk subsets (range: $2,878 to $4,579), as compared with stress myocardial perfusion imaging plus selective catheterization (range: $2,387 to $3,010, p < 0.0001). Coronary revascularization rates were higher for low, intermediate and high risk direct catheterization patients as compared with the initial stress perfusion imaging cohort (13% to 50%, p < 0.0001); cardiac death or myocardial infarction rates were similar (p > 0.20).
Observational assessments reveal that stable chest pain patients who undergo a more aggressive diagnostic strategy have higher diagnostic costs and greater rates of intervention and follow-up costs. Cost differences may reflect a diminished necessity for resource consumption for patients with normal test results.
本研究旨在确定冠心病诊断检查方式在护理成本方面的观察差异。
有多种诊断策略可供选择,但用于比较初始检查选择对成本影响的数据较少。
我们前瞻性纳入了11372例连续的稳定型心绞痛患者,这些患者被转诊进行负荷心肌灌注断层扫描或心脏导管检查。根据负荷成像患者冠心病的检查前临床风险,将其与一系列转诊进行心脏导管检查的患者进行匹配。比较了两种患者管理策略的3年综合护理成本:1)直接心脏导管检查(积极策略)和2)初始负荷心肌灌注断层扫描及对高危患者进行选择性导管检查(保守策略)。使用方差分析技术比较成本,并对治疗倾向和检查前风险进行调整。
与保守检查策略相比,积极检查策略的观察性比较显示,在所有临床风险亚组中,直接心脏导管检查的护理成本更高(范围:2878美元至4579美元),而负荷心肌灌注成像加选择性导管检查的成本更低(范围:2387美元至3010美元,p<0.0001)。与初始负荷灌注成像队列相比,低、中、高风险直接导管检查患者的冠状动脉血运重建率更高(13%至50%,p<0.0001);心脏死亡或心肌梗死发生率相似(p>0.20)。
观察性评估显示,采用更积极诊断策略的稳定型胸痛患者诊断成本更高,干预和后续成本率也更高。成本差异可能反映了检查结果正常的患者资源消耗必要性的降低。