Skip to main content
PMC home page
Netherlands Heart Journal logoLink to Netherlands Heart Journal
. 2005 Jun;13(6):214-218, 219-223.

Cost-effectiveness of intracoronary flow velocity measurements and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for management of intermediate coronary lesions

SAJ Chamuleau, MGW Dijkgraaf, BLF van Eck-Smit, JGP Tijssen, JJ Piek
PMCID: PMC2497345  PMID: 25696495

Abstract

Background

Coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) is an alternative for myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (SPECT) in assessing functional severity of coronary lesions. For the acceptance of CFVR in daily clinical decision-making, cost-effectiveness must be proven.

Aim

Economic evaluation of different diagnostic management strategies using CFVR compared with SPECT for making decisions regarding use of PTCA of an intermediate coronary lesion in patients with multivessel disease.

Methods

The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was based on data from a prospective multicentre study in 201 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Four management strategies, assuming performance of angioplasty after positive test result(s), were compared: SPECT alone, CFVR alone (cut-off value of 2.0), and combined strategies of SPECT and CFVR with one ('extensive') or two ('restrictive') positive test(s). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation. Primary outcome was the probability of a cardiac event-free first year with respect to the intermediate lesion.

Results

A 10% event rate was observed, which was predominantly associated with ischaemia-driven revascularisations. A strategy based on CFVR was most effective. The restrictive strategy had the lowest costs and was most cost-effective; with increasing willingness-to-pay values (above €20,000) a CFVR-alone strategy became equally cost-effective.

Conclusion

It is mandatory to measure CFVR to decide upon angioplasty of the intermediate lesion in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. This decision can be based on the restrictive strategy (i.e. performance of PTCA in case of abnormal test results of both SPECT and CFVR) or solely on CFVR, depending on society's willingness-to-pay to prevent cardiac events.

Keywords: coronary artery disease, cost-effectiveness, coronary flow velocity reserve, diagnosis, myocardial perfusion, scintigraphy

Full text

PDF
214

Images in this article

219Figure 3
on p.219

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bauters C., Hubert E., Prat A., Bougrimi K., Van Belle E., McFadden E. P., Amouyel P., Lablanche J. M., Bertrand M. Predictors of restenosis after coronary stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 May;31(6):1291–1298. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(98)00076-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Berman D. S., Germano G., Shaw L. J. The role of nuclear cardiology in clinical decision making. Semin Nucl Med. 1999 Oct;29(4):280–297. doi: 10.1016/s0001-2998(99)80017-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Briggs A. H. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. An illustration and application to blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001 Winter;17(1):69–82. doi: 10.1017/s0266462301104071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Doubilet P., Begg C. B., Weinstein M. C., Braun P., McNeil B. J. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. A practical approach. Med Decis Making. 1985 Summer;5(2):157–177. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8500500205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Erbel R., Haude M., Höpp H. W., Franzen D., Rupprecht H. J., Heublein B., Fischer K., de Jaegere P., Serruys P., Rutsch W. Coronary-artery stenting compared with balloon angioplasty for restenosis after initial balloon angioplasty. Restenosis Stent Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1998 Dec 3;339(23):1672–1678. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199812033392304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Faxon D. P. Predicting restenosis: bigger is better but not best. Circulation. 2000 Mar 7;101(9):946–947. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.101.9.946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fryback D. G., Chinnis J. O., Jr, Ulvila J. W. Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis. An example using the GUSTO trial. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001 Winter;17(1):83–97. doi: 10.1017/s0266462301104083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kern M. J. Coronary physiology revisited : practical insights from the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Circulation. 2000 Mar 21;101(11):1344–1351. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.101.11.1344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kern M. J., de Bruyne B., Pijls N. H. From research to clinical practice: current role of intracoronary physiologically based decision making in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Sep;30(3):613–620. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(97)00224-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Patterson R. E. Cost-effectiveness analysis in diagnosis of cardiac disease: overview of its rationale and method. J Nucl Cardiol. 1996 Jul-Aug;3(4):334–341. doi: 10.1016/s1071-3581(96)90094-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Patterson R. E., Eisner R. L., Horowitz S. F. Comparison of cost-effectiveness and utility of exercise ECG, single photon emission computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and coronary angiography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1995 Jan 1;91(1):54–65. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.91.1.54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Peters R. J., Kok W. E., Di Mario C., Serruys P. W., Bär F. W., Pasterkamp G., Borst C., Kamp O., Bronzwaer J. G., Visser C. A. Prediction of restenosis after coronary balloon angioplasty. Results of PICTURE (Post-IntraCoronary Treatment Ultrasound Result Evaluation), a prospective multicenter intracoronary ultrasound imaging study. Circulation. 1997 May 6;95(9):2254–2261. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.95.9.2254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Scanlon P. J., Faxon D. P., Audet A. M., Carabello B., Dehmer G. J., Eagle K. A., Legako R. D., Leon D. F., Murray J. A., Nissen S. E. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography). Developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999 May;33(6):1756–1824. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00126-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Serruys P. W., de Bruyne B., Carlier S., Sousa J. E., Piek J., Muramatsu T., Vrints C., Probst P., Seabra-Gomes R., Simpson I. Randomized comparison of primary stenting and provisional balloon angioplasty guided by flow velocity measurement. Doppler Endpoints Balloon Angioplasty Trial Europe (DEBATE) II Study Group. Circulation. 2000 Dec 12;102(24):2930–2937. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.102.24.2930. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Serruys P. W., de Jaegere P., Kiemeneij F., Macaya C., Rutsch W., Heyndrickx G., Emanuelsson H., Marco J., Legrand V., Materne P. A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1994 Aug 25;331(8):489–495. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199408253310801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Togni Mario, Balmer Florian, Pfiffner Dorothy, Maier Willibald, Zeiher Andreas M., Meier Bernhard, Working Group, Interventional Cardiology and Coronary Pathophysiology, European Society of Cardiology Percutaneous coronary interventions in Europe 1992-2001. Eur Heart J. 2004 Jul;25(14):1208–1213. doi: 10.1016/j.ehj.2004.04.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Zaret B. L., Wackers F. J. Nuclear cardiology (1). N Engl J Med. 1993 Sep 9;329(11):775–783. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199309093291107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. van Hout B. A., Goes E. S., Grijseels E. W., Quarles van Ufford M. A. Economische evaluatie binnen de cardiologie; achtergrond en toepassing. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1998 Sep 19;142(38):2083–2086. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Netherlands Heart Journal are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES