Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
Coronary artery calcium score as a gatekeeper for further testing in patients with low probability of obstructive coronary artery disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis
Session:
Prémio do Jovem Investigador
Speaker:
Daniel A. Gomes
Congress:
CPC 2023
Topic:
P. Other
Theme:
37. Miscellanea
Subtheme:
03.2 Computed Tomography
Session Type:
Sessão de Prémios
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Daniel A. Gomes; Francisco Albuquerque; Pedro Lopes; Pedro Freitas; Cláudia Silva; Sara Guerreiro; João Abecasis; Ana Coutinho Santos; Carla Saraiva; Jorge Ferreira; Pedro de Araújo Gonçalves; Hugo Marques; Miguel Mendes; António M. Ferreira
Abstract
<p><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"><strong>Introduction:</strong></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">Current guidelines recommend not to routinely test patients with chest pain and low pretest probability (PTP <15%) of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) but envisage the use of risk modifiers such as coronary artery calcium score (CACS) to refine patient selection for testing. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of three different testing strategies in the approach to symptomatic patients with low PTP of obstructive CAD: A) not test; B) perform CACS, withholding testing if = 0 and proceeding to coronary CT angiography (CCTA) if > 0; and C) perform CCTA in all cases, without prior CACS. </span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"><strong>Methods:</strong></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">We developed a CE model using data from a two-centre study of 1385 patients with non-acute chest pain and PTP <15% who underwent CACS immediately followed by CCTA. Key input data included the proportion of patients with obstructive CAD on CCTA (10.3%), the proportion with CACS=0 (57%), and the negative predictive value of CACS for obstructive CAD on CCTA (98.9%), which was considered the gold standard for this simulation.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">The CE of each strategy was defined as the cost per correct diagnosis. Direct costs were calculated using the price list from the Portuguese National Health Service. Indirect costs, including incidental findings, were estimated according to the literature. The cost attributable to a false-negative was set at 3-times the cost of a false-positive, as customary.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"><strong>Results:</strong></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">Not testing would correctly classify 89.7% of cases, and would cost €121.433 per 1000 patients, due to the costs imputed to false negatives. Using CACS as a gatekeeper for CCTA would correctly diagnose 98.9% of cases, and cost €247.116 per 1000 patients. Employing CCTA as first line test would correctly classify all patients, at a cost of €271.007 for 1000 diagnosed patients.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">Overall, the added cost for an additional correct diagnosis was €1.366 for CACS±CCTA strategy vs. no testing, and €2.172 for CCTA vs. CACS±CCTA. The corresponding cost-effectiveness thresholds (CET) were €943 - €3.450 for men; and €1.527 - €1.972 for women (<strong>Table</strong>).</span></span></p> <p><br /> <span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"><strong>Conclusions:</strong></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">Not testing patients with low PTP of obstructive CAD should be disfavored unless the CET is below €1.366 per correct diagnosis. First-line CCTA yields the most correct diagnoses and is cost-effective above CET over €2.172 per additional correct diagnosis. Using CACS as a gatekeeper for further testing is cost-effective between these thresholds, which are wider for men than for women. These findings may inform decisions on testing, but the most suitable strategy will ultimately depend on the costs and amount of missed diagnoses stakeholders are willing to accept.</span></span></p>
Slides
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site