Department of Radiology, Tufts Medical Center and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010 Aug;26(6):605-12. doi: 10.1007/s10554-010-9634-z. Epub 2010 May 6.
To summarize the results of all original cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in diagnostic cardiovascular imaging (CVI) and characterize those technologies by estimates of their cost-effectiveness. We systematically searched the literature for original CVI CUAs published between 2000 and 2008. Studies were classified according to several variables including anatomy of interest (e.g. cerebrovascular, aorta, peripheral) and imaging modality under study (e.g. angiography, ultrasound). The results of each study, expressed as cost of the intervention to number of quality-adjusted life years saved ratio (cost/QALY) were additionally classified as favorable or not using $20,000, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY thresholds. The distribution of results was assessed with Chi Square or Fisher exact test, as indicated. Sixty-nine percent of all cardiovascular imaging CUAs were published between 2000 and 2008. Thirty-two studies reporting 82 cost/QALY ratios were included in the final sample. The most common vascular areas studied were cerebrovascular (n = 9) and cardiac (n = 8). Sixty-six percent (21/32) of studies focused on sonography, followed by conventional angiography and CT (25%, n = 8, each). Twenty-nine (35.4%), 42 (51.2%), and 53 (64.6%) ratios were favorable at WTP $20,000/QALY, $50,000/QALY, and $100,000/QALY, respectively. Thirty (36.6%) ratios compared one imaging test versus medical or surgical interventions; 26 (31.7%) ratios compared imaging to a different imaging test and another 26 (31.7%) to no intervention. Imaging interventions were more likely (P < 0.01) to be favorable when compared to observation, medical treatment or non-intervention than when compared to a different imaging test at WTP $100,000/QALY. The diagnostic cardiovascular imaging literature has growth substantially. The studies available have, in general, favorable cost-effectiveness profiles with major determinants relating to being compared against observation, medical or no intervention instead of other imaging tests.
总结 2000 至 2008 年间发表的心血管诊断成像(CVI)的所有原始成本效用分析(CUA)的结果,并通过对其成本效益比的估计来对这些技术进行分类。我们系统地检索了 2000 至 2008 年间发表的心血管诊断成像原始 CUA 文献。根据所关注的解剖结构(如脑血管、主动脉、外周血管)和研究中的成像方式(如血管造影、超声)对研究进行分类。每个研究的结果以干预的成本与每单位质量调整生命年的节省比值(成本/QALY)表示,此外还根据 2 万美元、5 万美元和 10 万美元/QALY 的阈值将其分为有利或不利。采用卡方或 Fisher 精确检验评估结果的分布。所有心血管成像 CUA 的 69%发表于 2000 至 2008 年间。最终样本中包含 32 项研究报告的 82 个成本/QALY 比值。研究最多的血管区域为脑血管(n = 9)和心脏(n = 8)。66%(21/32)的研究侧重于超声,其次是常规血管造影和 CT(25%,n = 8)。29(35.4%)、42(51.2%)和 53(64.6%)个比值在支付意愿为 2 万美元/QALY、5 万美元/QALY 和 10 万美元/QALY 时是有利的。30 个比值(36.6%)将一种成像测试与医学或外科干预进行了比较;26 个比值(31.7%)将成像与另一种成像测试进行了比较,另外 26 个比值(31.7%)与无干预进行了比较。在支付意愿为 10 万美元/QALY 时,与观察、医学治疗或不干预相比,与观察、医学治疗或不干预相比,成像干预更有可能是有利的(P < 0.01),而与另一种成像测试相比。心血管诊断成像文献的数量有了显著增长。一般来说,现有研究具有有利的成本效益比,其主要决定因素是与观察、医学或不干预相比,而不是与其他成像测试相比。