Economic evaluation of single-photon emission-computed tomography versus stress echocardiography in stable chest pain patients.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 09 2022
08 09 2022
Historique:
received:
25
10
2021
accepted:
30
08
2022
entrez:
8
9
2022
pubmed:
9
9
2022
medline:
14
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The timely diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) is an important medical problem. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of Single-Photon Emission-Computed Tomography (SPECT) compared with stress echocardiography in stable chest pain patients. An economic evaluation study was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of SPECT versus stress echocardiography in stable chest pain patients without known CAD between April 1, 2017, and September 1, 2018 in Tehran, Iran. This study was performed from a societal perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated using a decision tree model. In addition, the robustness of results was examined by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. This study showed that the expected cost and expected QALY for Stress echocardiography was $1106.75 and 0.83 respectively. Also, SPECT had expected cost and expected QALY equal to $1622.39 and 0.80 respectively. Finally, Stress echocardiography was the dominant strategy for CAD, with a lower cost and greater effectiveness than SPECT. The stress echocardiography can saved $18,528.17 per QALY. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. Stress echocardiography was a more cost-effective method for diagnosing CAD disease in stable chest pain patients without known CAD compared to SPECT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36076061
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-19496-8
pii: 10.1038/s41598-022-19496-8
pmc: PMC9458740
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
15223Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2008 Mar;7(1):67-72
pubmed: 17889616
Eur J Radiol. 2007 Oct;64(1):41-7
pubmed: 17681447
Prog Cardiovasc Nurs. 2005 Spring;20(2):48-57
pubmed: 15886547
Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Dec;20(9):1451
pubmed: 31654289
Cardiovasc Ther. 2019 Nov 26;2019:8295054
pubmed: 32099582
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2014 Apr;102(4):391-402
pubmed: 24844876
Eur J Echocardiogr. 2008 Jul;9(4):415-37
pubmed: 18579481
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Dec 25;60(25 Suppl):S1-49
pubmed: 23257320
Eur Heart J. 2008 Feb;29(4):557-63
pubmed: 18202253
Circulation. 2018 Mar 20;137(12):e67-e492
pubmed: 29386200
Eur Heart J. 2013 Oct;34(39):3028-34
pubmed: 24014390
Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2016 Feb 13;18(2):e21584
pubmed: 27186384
Neth Heart J. 2014 Jun;22(6):257-8
pubmed: 24756398
Arch Iran Med. 2013 Mar;16(3):138-44
pubmed: 23432164
Circulation. 2000 Apr 25;101(16):1899-906
pubmed: 10779454
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Mar 18;63(10):1002-8
pubmed: 24636556
Am J Cardiol. 2006 Aug 15;98(4):541-3
pubmed: 16893714
J Nucl Cardiol. 2002 Sep-Oct;9(5):515-22
pubmed: 12360132
Circulation. 1996 Mar 1;93(5):905-14
pubmed: 8598081
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015 Sep-Oct;9(5):428-37
pubmed: 25977116
N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 30;363(27):2611-20
pubmed: 21190455
J Tehran Heart Cent. 2019 Jan;14(1):1-5
pubmed: 31210763
Epidemiol Health. 2016 Oct 26;38:e2016046
pubmed: 27788567