Shaw Leslee J, Marwick Thomas H, Berman Daniel S, Sawada Stephen, Heller Gary V, Vasey Charles, Miller D Douglas
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, David Geffen UCLA School of Medicine, Taper Building, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA.
Eur Heart J. 2006 Oct;27(20):2448-58. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehl204. Epub 2006 Sep 26.
Technological advances in cardiac imaging have led to dramatic increases in test utilization and consumption of a growing proportion of cardiovascular healthcare costs. The opportunity costs of strategies favouring exercise echocardiography or SPECT imaging have been incompletely evaluated.
We examined prognosis and cost-effectiveness of exercise echocardiography (n = 4884) vs. SPECT (n = 4637) imaging in stable, intermediate risk, chest pain patients. Ischaemia extent was defined as the number of vascular territories with echocardiographic wall motion or SPECT perfusion abnormalities. Cox proportional hazard models were employed to assess time to cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI). Total cardiovascular costs were summed (discounted and inflation-corrected) throughout follow-up. A cost-effectiveness ratio < Dollars 50,000 per life year saved (LYS) was considered favourable for economic efficiency. The risk-adjusted 3-year death or MI rates classified by extent of ischaemia were similar, ranging from 2.3 to 8.0% for echocardiography and from 3.5 to 11.0% for SPECT (model chi2 = 216; P < 0.0001; interaction P = 0.24). Cost-effectiveness ratios for echocardiography were < Dollars 20,000/LYS when the annual risk of death or MI was < 2%. However, when yearly cardiac event rate were > 2%, cost-effectiveness ratios for echocardiography vs. SPECT were in the range of Dollars 66,686-Dollars 419,522/LYS. For patients with established coronary disease (i.e. > or = 2% annual event risk), SPECT ischaemia was associated with earlier and greater utilization of coronary revascularization (P < 0.0001) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Dollars 32,381/LYS.
Health care policies aimed at allocating limited resources can be effectively guided by applying clinical and economic outcomes evidence. A strategy aimed at cost-effective testing would support using echocardiography in low-risk patients with suspected coronary disease, whereas those higher risk patients benefit from referral to SPECT imaging.
心脏成像技术的进步导致检查利用率大幅提高,心血管医疗费用中越来越大的一部分被消耗。支持运动超声心动图或单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)成像策略的机会成本尚未得到充分评估。
我们在稳定的中度风险胸痛患者中,研究了运动超声心动图(n = 4884)与SPECT(n = 4637)成像的预后和成本效益。缺血范围定义为存在超声心动图壁运动或SPECT灌注异常的血管区域数量。采用Cox比例风险模型评估至心源性死亡或心肌梗死(MI)的时间。在整个随访期间汇总总心血管成本(贴现并校正通货膨胀)。每挽救一个生命年(LYS)成本效益比<50,美元被认为具有良好的经济效率。根据缺血范围分类的风险调整后3年死亡或MI发生率相似,超声心动图为2.3%至8.0%,SPECT为3.5%至11.0%(模型χ2 = 216;P < 0.0001;交互作用P = 0.24)。当年死亡或MI风险<2%时,超声心动图的成本效益比<20,000美元/LYS。然而,当年心脏事件发生率>2%时,超声心动图与SPECT的成本效益比在66,686美元至419,522美元/LYS范围内。对于已确诊冠心病的患者(即年事件风险≥2%),SPECT缺血与冠状动脉血运重建的更早及更高利用率相关(P < 0.0001),导致增量成本效益比为32,381美元/LYS。
旨在分配有限资源的医疗保健政策可以通过应用临床和经济结果证据得到有效指导。旨在进行具有成本效益检测的策略将支持在疑似冠心病的低风险患者中使用超声心动图,而那些高风险患者则受益于转诊至SPECT成像。