We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Cost-effectiveness targets for multi-detector row CT angiography in the work-up of patients with intermittent claudication.
Radiology 2003 June
PURPOSE: To determine the costs, sensitivity for detection of significant stenoses, and proportion of equivocal multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) angiography results in the work-up of patients with intermittent claudication that would make this imaging examination cost-effective compared with gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision model was used to compare the societal cost-effectiveness of a new imaging modality with that of gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography. Main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs. By using threshold analysis of a given willingness to pay per QALY, target values for costs, sensitivity for detection of significant stenoses, and proportion of cases requiring additional work-up with intraarterial digital subtraction angiography owing to equivocal results of the new modality were determined. The base case evaluated was that of 60-year-old men with severe intermittent claudication and assumed an incremental cost-effectiveness threshold of 100,000 US dollars per QALY.
RESULTS: If treatment were limited to angioplasty, a new imaging modality would be cost-effective if the costs were 300 US dollars and the sensitivity was 85%, even if up to 35% of patients needed additional work-up. When both angioplasty and bypass surgery were considered as treatment options, a new imaging modality was cost-effective if the costs were 300 US dollars, the sensitivity was higher than 94%, and 20% of patients required additional work-up.
CONCLUSION: Multi-detector row CT angiography, as compared with currently used imaging modalities such as MR angiography, has the potential to be cost-effective in the evaluation of patients with intermittent claudication.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision model was used to compare the societal cost-effectiveness of a new imaging modality with that of gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography. Main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs. By using threshold analysis of a given willingness to pay per QALY, target values for costs, sensitivity for detection of significant stenoses, and proportion of cases requiring additional work-up with intraarterial digital subtraction angiography owing to equivocal results of the new modality were determined. The base case evaluated was that of 60-year-old men with severe intermittent claudication and assumed an incremental cost-effectiveness threshold of 100,000 US dollars per QALY.
RESULTS: If treatment were limited to angioplasty, a new imaging modality would be cost-effective if the costs were 300 US dollars and the sensitivity was 85%, even if up to 35% of patients needed additional work-up. When both angioplasty and bypass surgery were considered as treatment options, a new imaging modality was cost-effective if the costs were 300 US dollars, the sensitivity was higher than 94%, and 20% of patients required additional work-up.
CONCLUSION: Multi-detector row CT angiography, as compared with currently used imaging modalities such as MR angiography, has the potential to be cost-effective in the evaluation of patients with intermittent claudication.
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