Toney Lauren K, Kim Richard D, Palli Swetha R
Division of Nuclear Medicine, Valley Medical Center, Renton, WA.
Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA.
Acad Emerg Med. 2017 Sep;24(9):1110-1123. doi: 10.1111/acem.13247. Epub 2017 Aug 14.
The objective was to quantify the potential economic value of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) with computed tomography (CT; SPECT/CT) versus CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA), ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) planar scintigraphy, and V/Q SPECT imaging modalities for diagnosing suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) patients in an emergency setting.
An Excel-based simulation model was developed to compare SPECT/CT versus the alternate scanning technologies from a payer's perspective. Clinical endpoints (diagnosis, treatment, complications, and mortality) and their corresponding cost data (2016 USD) were obtained by performing a best evidence review of the published literature. Studies were pooled and parameters were weighted by sample size. Outcomes measured included differences in 1) excess costs, 2) total costs, and 3) lives lost per annum between SPECT/CT and the other imaging modalities. One-way (±25%) sensitivity and three scenario analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results.
For every 1,000 suspected PE patients undergoing imaging, expected annual economic burden by modality was found to be 3.2 million (SPECT/CT), 3.8 million (CTPA), 5.8 million (planar), and 3.6 million (SPECT) USD, with a switch to SPECT/CT technology yielding per-patient-per-month cost savings of $51.80 (vs. CTPA), $213.80 (vs. planar), and $36.30 (vs. SPECT), respectively. The model calculated that the incremental number of lives saved with SPECT/CT was six (vs. CTPA) and three (vs. planar). Utilizing SPECT/CT as the initial imaging modality for workup of acute PE was also expected to save $994,777 (vs. CTPA), $2,852,014 (vs. planar), and $435,038 (vs. SPECT) in "potentially avoidable"' excess costs per annum for a payer or health plan.
Compared to the currently available scanning technologies for diagnosing suspected PE, SPECT/CT appears to confer superior economic value, primarily via improved sensitivity and specificity and low nondiagnostic rates. In turn, the improved diagnostic accuracy accords this modality the lowest ratio of expenses attributable to potentially avoidable complications, misdiagnosis, and underdiagnosis.
本研究旨在量化在急诊环境下,单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)联合计算机断层扫描(CT;SPECT/CT)相较于CT肺动脉造影(CTPA)、通气灌注(V/Q)平面闪烁显像及V/Q SPECT成像模式,用于诊断疑似肺栓塞(PE)患者的潜在经济价值。
基于Excel开发了一个模拟模型,从支付方的角度比较SPECT/CT与其他扫描技术。通过对已发表文献进行最佳证据回顾,获取临床终点(诊断、治疗、并发症及死亡率)及其相应的成本数据(2016年美元)。汇总研究并根据样本量对参数进行加权。测量的结果包括SPECT/CT与其他成像模式在以下方面的差异:1)额外成本;2)总成本;3)每年的生命损失。进行单向(±25%)敏感性分析和三种情景分析,以评估结果的稳健性。
对于每1000例接受成像检查的疑似PE患者,各成像模式的预期年度经济负担分别为:320万美元(SPECT/CT)、380万美元(CTPA)、580万美元(平面显像)和360万美元(SPECT)。改用SPECT/CT技术后,每位患者每月可分别节省成本51.80美元(与CTPA相比)、213.80美元(与平面显像相比)和36.30美元(与SPECT相比)。该模型计算得出,使用SPECT/CT可多挽救的生命数量为6例(与CTPA相比)和3例(与平面显像相比)。将SPECT/CT作为急性PE检查的初始成像模式,预计每年可为支付方或健康计划节省“潜在可避免”的额外成本994,777美元(与CTPA相比)、2,852,014美元(与平面显像相比)和435,038美元(与SPECT相比)。
与目前用于诊断疑似PE的扫描技术相比,SPECT/CT似乎具有更高的经济价值,主要是通过提高敏感性和特异性以及降低非诊断率来实现。相应地,诊断准确性的提高使该模式在因潜在可避免的并发症、误诊和漏诊导致的费用方面具有最低的比例。