Department of Neurology Albert Einstein College of MedicineMontefiore Medical Center Bronx NY.
The Center for Health and the Social Sciences University of Chicago Chicago IL.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Jun 15;10(12):e019001. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.019001. Epub 2021 May 31.
Background Accurate diagnosis of patients with transient or minor neurological events can be challenging. Recent studies suggest that advanced neuroimaging can improve diagnostic accuracy in low-risk patients with transient or minor neurological symptoms, but a cost-effective emergency department diagnostic evaluation strategy remains uncertain. Methods and Results We constructed a decision-analytic model to evaluate 2 diagnostic evaluation strategies for patients with low-risk transient or minor neurological symptoms: (1) obtain advanced neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging brain and magnetic resonance angiography head and neck) on every patient or (2) current emergency department standard-of-care clinical evaluation with basic neuroimaging. Main probability variables were: proportion of patients with true ischemic events, strategy specificity and sensitivity, and recurrent stroke rate. Direct healthcare costs were included. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, conducted sensitivity analyses, and evaluated various diagnostic test parameters primarily using a 1-year time horizon. Cost-effectiveness standards would be met if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than willingness to pay. We defined willingness to pay as $100 000 US dollars per quality-adjusted life year. Our primary and sensitivity analyses found that the advanced neuroimaging strategy was more cost-effective than emergency department standard of care. The incremental effectiveness of the advanced neuroimaging strategy was slightly less than the standard-of-care strategy, but the standard-of-care strategy was more costly. Potentially superior diagnostic approaches to the modeled advanced neuroimaging strategy would have to be >92% specific, >70% sensitive, and cost less than or equal to standard-of-care strategy's cost. Conclusions Obtaining advanced neuroimaging on emergency department patient with low-risk transient or minor neurological symptoms was the more cost-effective strategy in our model.
背景 准确诊断短暂性或轻微神经事件患者具有挑战性。最近的研究表明,高级神经影像学可以提高低危短暂性或轻微神经症状患者的诊断准确性,但具有成本效益的急诊诊断评估策略仍不确定。
方法和结果 我们构建了一个决策分析模型,以评估低危短暂性或轻微神经症状患者的两种诊断评估策略:(1)对每位患者进行高级神经影像学(脑部磁共振成像和头颈部磁共振血管造影)检查,或(2)采用当前急诊标准护理临床评估加基本神经影像学。主要概率变量为:真正缺血性事件患者的比例、策略特异性和敏感性以及复发性卒中率。直接医疗保健成本包括在内。我们计算了增量成本效益比,进行了敏感性分析,并主要使用 1 年时间范围评估了各种诊断测试参数。如果增量成本效益比低于支付意愿,则符合成本效益标准。我们将支付意愿定义为每质量调整生命年 10 万美元。我们的主要和敏感性分析发现,高级神经影像学策略比急诊标准护理更具成本效益。高级神经影像学策略的增量效果略低于标准护理策略,但标准护理策略成本更高。潜在优于模型高级神经影像学策略的诊断方法必须具有>92%的特异性、>70%的敏感性,并且成本低于或等于标准护理策略的成本。
结论 在我们的模型中,对低危短暂性或轻微神经症状的急诊患者进行高级神经影像学检查是更具成本效益的策略。