Low osmolar (non-ionic) contrast media versus high osmolar (ionic) contrast media in intravenous urography and enhanced computerized tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

The cost-effectiveness of three alternative policies for the use of intravenous contrast media for urography and enhanced computerized tomography (CT) are analyzed. Alternative #1 is to use high osmolar contrast media (HOCM) in all patients, the historical policy. Alternative #2 is to replace it with low osmolar contrast media (LOCM) in all patients. Alternative #3 is to use LOCM only in the high risk patients. Data on the 6,242 patients who underwent intravenous urography and enhanced CT at the Department of Radiology, Chulalongkorn Hospital in 1989 were used. Both societal and hospital viewpoints were analyzed. The incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) between #2 and #1 was 26,739 Baht (US$1,070) per healthy day saved (HDS), while the ICE between #3 and #1 was 12,057 Baht (US$482) per HDS. For fatal cases only, ICE between #2 and #1 was 35,111 Baht (US$1,404) per HDS, while the ICE between #3 and #1 was 18,266 Baht (US$731) per HDS. The incremental cost (IC) per patient was 2,341 Baht (US$94) and 681 Baht (US$27) respectively. For the hospital viewpoint the ICE between #2 and #1 was 13,744 (US$550) and between #3 and #1 was 6,127 Baht (US$245) per HDS. The IC per patient was 1,203 Baht (US$48) and 346 Baht (US$14), respectively. From the sensitivity analysis, #3 should be used if the LOCM price is reduced more than 75% (equal to 626 Baht or less) and more than 80% of the patients are able to pay for the contrast media.