Title of article
Left ventricular opacification for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease with stress echocardiography: An angiographic study of incremental benefit and cost-effectiveness
Author/Authors
Stuart Moir، نويسنده , , Leslee Shaw*، نويسنده , , Brian Haluska، نويسنده , , Carly Jenkins، نويسنده , , Thomas H. Marwick، نويسنده ,
Issue Information
روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2007
Pages
9
From page
510
To page
518
Abstract
Background
Left ventricular opacification (LVO) improves image quality at stress echocardiography (SE). We examined whether routine use of LVO adds incremental benefit and is cost-effective for diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD).
Methods
Contrast pharmacologic and/or exercise SE was performed in 135 patients (81 men; 56 ± 10 years) undergoing coronary angiography. Observers sequentially interpreted first standard, then LVO images; a positive SE was defined by resting or inducible wall motion abnormality in ≥2 segments. Coronary artery disease (75 patients, 119 territories) was defined as >50% stenosis. Three cost-effectiveness models were studied, and a sensitivity analysis was performed.
Results
Left ventricular opacification increased the sensitivity of SE (80%-91%; P = .03), including single-vessel CAD (65%-87%; P = .04), with no significant change in specificity (72%-77%; P = NS). Left ventricular opacification was of benefit to 14% of patients, unrelated to resting image quality. Use of LVO in all patients added 59% to the cost of the procedure (P < .001), at a cost of $1069 per additional correct diagnosis. In a cost-effectiveness model based on cardiac outcomes after SE, LVO resulted in an increase in total cost of $1069. A 3.7% improvement in sensitivity resulted in a negative cost to identify CAD, but even 15% to 20% improvements in specificity failed to balance the cost of contrast for exclusion of CAD.
Conclusions
Left ventricular opacification adds significant incremental diagnostic benefit to standard SE, especially single-vessel CAD. Despite improved sensitivity, the use of contrast in all patients was not cost-effective when analyzed with a model based on previously published patient outcomes.
Journal title
American Heart Journal
Serial Year
2007
Journal title
American Heart Journal
Record number
535000
Link To Document