Key result
Functional myocardial ischemia evaluation demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness compared to anatomical evaluation in patients with stable coronary artery disease (2,431 vs 2,902 US$/LY, p=0.043).
Why the study?
With increasing numbers and costs of PCI and growing interest in the appropriateness of coronary revascularization, a medical economics-based evaluation of testing and diagnosis for stable CAD was needed.
Does functional myocardial ischemia evaluation improve cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes compared to anatomical evaluation in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Cohort (n=3,477)
Yes
Does functional myocardial ischemia evaluation improve cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes compared to anatomical evaluation in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 2431% vs 2902%
p-value: p=0.043
Functional myocardial ischemia evaluation in stable CAD offers superior long-term cost-effectiveness and reduces cumulative medical costs compared to anatomical evaluation.
Functional testing may improve outcomes and lower costs in stable CAD; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: The procedural numbers and medical costs of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), mainly elective PCI, have been increasing in Japan. Owing to increased interest in the appropriateness of coronary revascularization, we conducted this medical economics-based evaluation of testing and diagnosis of stable coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed patients' medical insurance data to identify stable CAD patients who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography, cardiac single-photon emission computed tomography, coronary angiography, or fractional flow reserve. Subjects were divided into anatomical and functional evaluation groups according to the modality of testing, and background factors were matched by propensity score. The endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), life years (LYs), medical costs, and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). The observations were performed for 36 months. MACE, medical costs, and CEA of the functional group in the overall category were trending to be better than the anatomical group (MACE, P = .051; medical costs: 3,105 US$ vs 4,430 US$, P = .007; CEA: 2,431 US$/LY vs 2,902 US$/LY, P = .043). CONCLUSIONS: The functional evaluation approach improved long-term clinical outcomes and reduced cumulative medical costs. As a result, the modality composition of functional myocardial ischemia evaluation was demonstrated to offer superior cost-effectiveness in stable CAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takura et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Stable coronary artery disease (n=3,477). Functional myocardial ischemia evaluation vs. Anatomical evaluation was evaluated on Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in US$/LY (p=0.043). Functional myocardial ischemia evaluation demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness compared to anatomical evaluation in patients with stable coronary artery disease (2,431 vs 2,902 US$/LY, p=0.043).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: