Why the study?
Guidelines recommend not routinely testing low-PTP chest pain patients but envisage using CACS as a risk modifier, prompting evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of different testing strategies.
Does using CACS as a gatekeeper for CCTA improve the cost-effectiveness of diagnosis in patients with non-acute chest pain and low pretest probability of obstructive CAD?
Does using CACS as a gatekeeper for CCTA improve the cost-effectiveness of diagnosis in patients with non-acute chest pain and low pretest probability of obstructive CAD?
Using CACS as a gatekeeper for CCTA in patients with low pretest probability of CAD is a cost-effective strategy to improve diagnostic accuracy compared to deferring testing.
CACS gating may offer favorable incremental cost per correct diagnosis in low-probability chest pain; leaves open prospective outcome trials before practice change.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines recommend not routinely testing 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. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of three different testing strategies in this population: (A) defer testing; (B) perform CACS, withholding further testing if CACS=0, and proceeding to coronary CT angiography (CCTA) if CACS>0; (C) CCTA in all. METHODS: We developed a CE model using data from a two-center cross-sectional study of 1385 patients with non-acute chest pain and PTP <15% undergoing CACS followed by CCTA. Key input data included the prevalence of obstructive CAD on CCTA (10.3%), the proportion with CACS=0 (57%), and the negative predictive value of CACS for obstructive CAD on CCTA (98.1%). RESULTS: Not testing would correctly classify 89.7% of cases and at a cost of €121433 per 1000 patients. Using CACS as a gatekeeper for CCTA would correctly diagnose 98.9% of cases and cost €247116/1000 patients. Employing first-line CCTA would correctly classify all patients, at a cost of €271007/1000 diagnosed patients. The added cost for an additional correct diagnosis was €1366 for CACS±CCTA vs. no testing, and €2172 for CCTA vs. CACS±CCTA. CONCLUSIONS: CACS as a gatekeeper for further testing is cost-effective between a threshold of €1366 and €2172 per additional correct diagnosis. CCTA yields the most correct diagnoses and is cost-effective above a threshold of €2172.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gomes et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: