We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Living renal donors: optimizing the imaging strategy--decision- and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Radiology 2003 January
PURPOSE: To determine the most cost-effective strategy for preoperative imaging performed in potential living renal donors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a decision-analytic model, the societal cost-effectiveness of digital subtraction angiography (DSA), gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography, contrast material-enhanced spiral computed tomographic (CT) angiography, and combinations of these imaging techniques was evaluated. Outcome measures included lifetime cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A base-case analysis was performed with a 40-year-old female donor and a 40-year-old female recipient.
RESULTS: For the donor, MR angiography (24.05 QALYs and 9,000 dollars) dominated all strategies except for MR angiography with CT angiography, which had an incremental ratio of 245,000 dollars per QALY. For the recipient, DSA and DSA with MR angiography yielded similar results (10.46 QALYs and 179,000 dollars) and dominated all other strategies. When results for donor and recipient were combined, DSA dominated all other strategies (34.51 QALYs and 188,000 dollars). If DSA was associated with a 99% specificity or less for detection of renal disease, MR angiography with CT angiography was superior (34.47 QALYs and 190,000 dollars).
CONCLUSION: For preoperative imaging in a potential renal donor, DSA is the most cost-effective strategy if it has a specificity greater than 99% for detection of renal disease; otherwise, MR angiography with CT angiography is the most cost-effective strategy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a decision-analytic model, the societal cost-effectiveness of digital subtraction angiography (DSA), gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography, contrast material-enhanced spiral computed tomographic (CT) angiography, and combinations of these imaging techniques was evaluated. Outcome measures included lifetime cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A base-case analysis was performed with a 40-year-old female donor and a 40-year-old female recipient.
RESULTS: For the donor, MR angiography (24.05 QALYs and 9,000 dollars) dominated all strategies except for MR angiography with CT angiography, which had an incremental ratio of 245,000 dollars per QALY. For the recipient, DSA and DSA with MR angiography yielded similar results (10.46 QALYs and 179,000 dollars) and dominated all other strategies. When results for donor and recipient were combined, DSA dominated all other strategies (34.51 QALYs and 188,000 dollars). If DSA was associated with a 99% specificity or less for detection of renal disease, MR angiography with CT angiography was superior (34.47 QALYs and 190,000 dollars).
CONCLUSION: For preoperative imaging in a potential renal donor, DSA is the most cost-effective strategy if it has a specificity greater than 99% for detection of renal disease; otherwise, MR angiography with CT angiography is the most cost-effective strategy.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app