Why the study?
Is screening for carotid artery disease cost-effective in asymptomatic patients with neck bruits?
Is screening for carotid artery disease cost-effective in asymptomatic patients with neck bruits?
Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in patients with neck bruits may be cost-effective if the prevalence of operable lesions is at least 20%.
May support targeted screening in high-prevalence asymptomatic cohorts; leaves open prospective trials before practice change.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Several recent clinical trials have shown that endarterectomy is efficacious in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of various test strategies for screening and diagnosing carotid artery disease. METHODS: We constructed a model of the natural history of carotid artery disease using literature-based estimates of the prevalence and incidence of carotid artery stenosis and associated morbidity and mortality. Markov cohort simulation was used to estimate the mean quality-adjusted life years and monetary costs associated with various management strategies. RESULTS: Screening is cost-effective in the baseline model. Key parameters affecting the efficacy of screening are prevalence of operable lesions, benefit of surgery, surgical complication rates, quality of life with stroke, rate of stenosis progression, and excess morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic patients with carotid bruits may benefit from screening if the prevalence rate is > or = 20%, the benefits and risks associated with surgery are similar to those observed in the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study, and the quality of life with stroke is considerably lower than the quality of life without stroke. Ultrasound followed by three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography, if indicated, is a promising test strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Obuchowski et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: