Real-world evidence study on the impact of SPECT MPI, PET MPI, cCTA and stress echocardiography on downstream healthcare utilisation in patients with coronary artery disease in the US.
Humans
Coronary Artery Disease
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Male
Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
/ statistics & numerical data
United States
Middle Aged
Aged
Echocardiography, Stress
Coronary Angiography
Predictive Value of Tests
Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon
Computed Tomography Angiography
Databases, Factual
Positron-Emission Tomography
Time Factors
Administrative Claims, Healthcare
Electronic Health Records
Coronary artery disease
Coronary artery disease diagnosis
Coronary computed tomography angiography
Diagnostic accuracy
Downstream healthcare utilisation
Myocardial perfusion imaging
Positron emission tomography
Real-world evidence
Single-photon emission computed tomography
Stress echocardiography
Journal
BMC cardiovascular disorders
ISSN: 1471-2261
Titre abrégé: BMC Cardiovasc Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968539
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Oct 2024
09 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
03
05
2024
accepted:
30
09
2024
medline:
9
10
2024
pubmed:
9
10
2024
entrez:
8
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with a large clinical and economic burden. However, consensus on the optimal approach to CAD diagnosis is lacking. This study sought to compare downstream healthcare resource utilisation following different cardiac imaging modalities, to inform test selection for CAD diagnosis. Claims and electronic health records data from the Decision Resources Group Real-World Evidence US Data Repository were analysed for 2.5 million US patients who underwent single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI), positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (PET MPI), coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA), or stress echocardiography between January 2016 and March 2018. Patients were stratified into nine cohorts based on suspected or existing CAD diagnosis, pre-test risk, and prior events or interventions. Downstream healthcare utilisation, including additional diagnostic imaging, coronary angiography, and cardiac-related health system encounters, was compared by cohort and index imaging modality. Among patients with suspected CAD diagnosed within 3 months of the index test, PET MPI was associated with lower downstream utilisation; 25-37% of patients who underwent PET MPI required additional downstream healthcare resources compared with 40-49% of patients who received SPECT MPI, 35-41% of patients who underwent cCTA, and 44-47% of patients who received stress echocardiography. Patients who underwent PET MPI experienced fewer acute cardiac events (5.3-9.4%) and generally had lower rates of healthcare encounters (0.8-4.1%) and invasive coronary angiography (ICA, 15.4-24.2%) than those who underwent other modalities. SPECT MPI was associated with more downstream ICA (31.3-38.2%) and a higher rate of cardiac events (9.5-13.2%) compared with PET MPI (5.3-9.4%) and cCTA (6.9-9.9%). Across all cohorts, additional diagnostic imaging was 1.6 to 4.7 times more frequent with cCTA compared with PET MPI. Choice of imaging modality for CAD diagnosis impacts downstream healthcare utilisation. PET MPI was associated with lower utilisation across multiple metrics compared with other imaging modalities studied.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with a large clinical and economic burden. However, consensus on the optimal approach to CAD diagnosis is lacking. This study sought to compare downstream healthcare resource utilisation following different cardiac imaging modalities, to inform test selection for CAD diagnosis.
METHODS
METHODS
Claims and electronic health records data from the Decision Resources Group Real-World Evidence US Data Repository were analysed for 2.5 million US patients who underwent single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI), positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (PET MPI), coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA), or stress echocardiography between January 2016 and March 2018. Patients were stratified into nine cohorts based on suspected or existing CAD diagnosis, pre-test risk, and prior events or interventions. Downstream healthcare utilisation, including additional diagnostic imaging, coronary angiography, and cardiac-related health system encounters, was compared by cohort and index imaging modality.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among patients with suspected CAD diagnosed within 3 months of the index test, PET MPI was associated with lower downstream utilisation; 25-37% of patients who underwent PET MPI required additional downstream healthcare resources compared with 40-49% of patients who received SPECT MPI, 35-41% of patients who underwent cCTA, and 44-47% of patients who received stress echocardiography. Patients who underwent PET MPI experienced fewer acute cardiac events (5.3-9.4%) and generally had lower rates of healthcare encounters (0.8-4.1%) and invasive coronary angiography (ICA, 15.4-24.2%) than those who underwent other modalities. SPECT MPI was associated with more downstream ICA (31.3-38.2%) and a higher rate of cardiac events (9.5-13.2%) compared with PET MPI (5.3-9.4%) and cCTA (6.9-9.9%). Across all cohorts, additional diagnostic imaging was 1.6 to 4.7 times more frequent with cCTA compared with PET MPI.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Choice of imaging modality for CAD diagnosis impacts downstream healthcare utilisation. PET MPI was associated with lower utilisation across multiple metrics compared with other imaging modalities studied.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39379835
doi: 10.1186/s12872-024-04225-y
pii: 10.1186/s12872-024-04225-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
543Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Malakar AK, Choudhury D, Halder B, Paul P, Uddin A, Chakraborty S. A review on coronary artery disease, its risk factors, and therapeutics. J Cell Physiol. 2019;234(10):16812–23.
pubmed: 30790284
doi: 10.1002/jcp.28350
Roth GA, Mensah GA, Johnson CO, Addolorato G, Ammirati E, Baddour LM, et al. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, 1990–2019: update from the GBD 2019 Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(25):2982–3021.
pubmed: 33309175
pmcid: 7755038
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.010
Ralapanawa U, Sivakanesan R. Epidemiology and the magnitude of coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome: a narrative review. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2021;11(2):169–77.
pubmed: 33605111
pmcid: 8242111
doi: 10.2991/jegh.k.201217.001
Yusuf S, Reddy S, Ounpuu S, Anand S. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases: part I: general considerations, the epidemiologic transition, risk factors, and impact of urbanization. Circulation. 2001;104(22):2746–53.
pubmed: 11723030
doi: 10.1161/hc4601.099487
Bauersachs R, Zeymer U, Briere JB, Marre C, Bowrin K, Huelsebeck M. Burden of coronary artery disease and peripheral artery disease: a literature review. Cardiovasc Ther. 2019;2019:8295054.
pubmed: 32099582
pmcid: 7024142
doi: 10.1155/2019/8295054
Virani SS, Alonso A, Aparicio HJ, Benjamin EJ, Bittencourt MS, Callaway CW, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2021 update: a report from the american heart association. Circulation. 2021;143(8):e254–743.
pubmed: 33501848
doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000950
Cassar A, Holmes DR Jr, Rihal CS, Gersh BJ. Chronic coronary artery disease: diagnosis and management. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(12):1130–46.
pubmed: 19955250
pmcid: 2787400
doi: 10.4065/mcp.2009.0391
Leal J, Luengo-Fernandez R, Gray A, Petersen S, Rayner M. Economic burden of cardiovascular diseases in the enlarged European Union. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(13):1610–9.
pubmed: 16495286
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi733
Liu JL, Maniadakis N, Gray A, Rayner M. The economic burden of coronary heart disease in the UK. Heart. 2002;88(6):597–603.
pubmed: 12433888
pmcid: 1767465
doi: 10.1136/heart.88.6.597
Gheorghe A, Griffiths U, Murphy A, Legido-Quigley H, Lamptey P, Perel P. The economic burden of cardiovascular disease and hypertension in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):975.
pubmed: 30081871
pmcid: 6090747
doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5806-x
Mangla A, Oliveros E, Williams KA, Kalra DK. Cardiac imaging in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2017;42(10):316–66.
pubmed: 28870377
doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2017.04.005
Tavakol M, Ashraf S, Brener SJ. Risks and complications of coronary angiography: a comprehensive review. Glob J Health Sci. 2012;4(1):65–93.
pubmed: 22980117
pmcid: 4777042
Chang HJ, Lin FY, Gebow D, An HY, Andreini D, Bathina R, et al. Selective referral using CCTA versus direct referral for individuals referred to invasive coronary angiography for suspected CAD: a randomized, controlled. Open-Label Trial JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12(7 Pt 2):1303–12.
pubmed: 30553687
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.09.018
Min JK, Gilmore A, Budoff MJ, Berman DS, O’Day K. Cost-effectiveness of coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion SPECT for evaluation of patients with chest pain and no known coronary artery disease. Radiology. 2010;254(3):801–8.
pubmed: 20177094
doi: 10.1148/radiol.09090349
Neglia D, Rovai D, Caselli C, Pietila M, Teresinska A, Aguade-Bruix S, et al. Detection of significant coronary artery disease by noninvasive anatomical and functional imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(3):e002179.
pubmed: 25711274
doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.114.002179
Chinnaiyan KM, Raff GL, Goraya T, Ananthasubramaniam K, Gallagher MJ, Abidov A, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography after stress testing: results from a multicenter, statewide registry, ACIC (Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging Consortium). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(7):688–95.
pubmed: 22322086
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.10.886
Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, Capodanno D, Barbato E, Funck-Brentano C, et al. 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes: the task force for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2019;41(3):407–77.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425
Hendel RC, Jabbar AY, Mahata I. Initial diagnostic evaluation of stable coronary artery disease: the need for a patient-centered strategy. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(7):e006863.
pubmed: 28729410
pmcid: 5586330
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.006863
Gulati M, Levy PD, Mukherjee D, Amsterdam E, Bhatt DL, Birtcher KK, et al. 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation. 2021;144(22):e368–454.
pubmed: 34709928
NICE; CG95. Recent-onset chest pain of suspected cardiac origin: assessment and diagnosis. 2016. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg95 .
Knuuti J, Ballo H, Juarez-Orozco LE, Saraste A, Kolh P, Rutjes AWS, et al. The performance of non-invasive tests to rule-in and rule-out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable angina: a meta-analysis focused on post-test disease probability. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(35):3322–30.
pubmed: 29850808
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy267
Tonino PA, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B, Oldroyd KG, Leesar MA, Ver Lee PN, et al. Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(25):2816–21.
pubmed: 20579537
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.11.096
Pelletier-Galarneau M, Vandenbroucke E, Lu M, Li O. Characteristics and key differences between patient populations receiving imaging modalities for coronary artery disease diagnosis in the US. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2023;23(1):251.
pubmed: 37189049
pmcid: 10186749
doi: 10.1186/s12872-023-03218-7
Klein R, Celiker-Guler E, Rotstein BH, deKemp RA. PET and SPECT Tracers for Myocardial Perfusion Imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2020;50(3):208–18.
pubmed: 32284107
doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2020.02.016
Hansing CE. The risk and cost of coronary angiography. I. Cost of coronary angiography in Washington State. JAMA. 1979;242(8):731–4.
pubmed: 459061
doi: 10.1001/jama.1979.03300080029020
Bateman TM. Advantages and disadvantages of PET and SPECT in a busy clinical practice. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19(1):3–11.
doi: 10.1007/s12350-011-9490-9
Piekarski E, Manrique A, Rouzet F, Le Guludec D. Current Status of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging With New SPECT/CT Cameras. Semin Nucl Med. 2020;50(3):219–26.
pubmed: 32284108
doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2020.02.009
Dorbala S, Ananthasubramaniam K, Armstrong IS, Chareonthaitawee P, DePuey EG, Einstein AJ, et al. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Guidelines: Instrumentation, Acquisition, Processing, and Interpretation. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018;25(5):1784–846.
pubmed: 29802599
doi: 10.1007/s12350-018-1283-y
Werner RA, Chen X, Rowe SP, Lapa C, Javadi MS, Higuchi T. Moving into the next era of PET myocardial perfusion imaging: introduction of novel (18)F-labeled tracers. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;35(3):569–77.
pubmed: 30334228
doi: 10.1007/s10554-018-1469-z
Koh AS, Blankstein R. Selecting the best noninvasive imaging test to guide treatment after an inconclusive exercise test. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2012;14(1):8–23.
pubmed: 22125179
doi: 10.1007/s11936-011-0161-6
Geleijnse ML, Salustri A, Marwick TH, Fioretti PM. Should the diagnosis of coronary artery disease be based on the evaluation of myocardial function or perfusion? Eur Heart J. 1997;18 Suppl D:D68–77.
pubmed: 9183614
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/18.suppl_D.68
Heo R, Nakazato R, Kalra D, Min JK. Noninvasive imaging in coronary artery disease. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44(5):398–409.
pubmed: 25234083
pmcid: 4191722
doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2014.05.004
Abdelrahman KM, Chen MY, Dey AK, Virmani R, Finn AV, Khamis RY, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography from clinical uses to emerging technologies: JACC State-of-the-Art eview. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(10):1226–43.
pubmed: 32883417
pmcid: 7480405
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.076
Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, Brennan JM, Redberg RF, Anderson HV, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(10):886–95.
pubmed: 20220183
pmcid: 3920593
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907272
Hoffmann U, Truong QA, Schoenfeld DA, Chou ET, Woodard PK, Nagurney JT, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(4):299–308.
pubmed: 22830462
pmcid: 3662217
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1201161
Reeves RA, Halpern EJ, Rao VM. Cardiac imaging trends from 2010 to 2019 in the medicare population. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2021;3(5):e210156.
pubmed: 34778785
pmcid: 8581585
doi: 10.1148/ryct.2021210156
Weir-McCall Jonathan R, Williams Michelle C, Shah Anoop SV, Roditi G, Rudd James HF, Newby David E, et al. National trends in coronary artery disease imaging. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2023;16(5):659–71.
pubmed: 36752441
Clarivate. Real world data. Available at: https://clarivate.com/products/real-world-data/#dynamics .
Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Driessen RS, Leipsic J, Raju R, Naoum C, et al. Comparison of coronary CT angiography, SPECT, PET, and hybrid imaging for diagnosis of ischemic heart disease determined by fractional flow reserve. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2(10):1100–7.
pubmed: 28813561
pmcid: 5710451
doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2017.2471
Mc Ardle BA, Dowsley TF, deKemp RA, Wells GA, Beanlands RS. Does Rubidium-82 PET Have Superior Accuracy to SPECT Perfusion Imaging for the Diagnosis of Obstructive Coronary Disease?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(18):1828–37.
pubmed: 23040573
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.038
Schindler TH, Bateman TM, Berman DS, Chareonthaitawee P, De Blanche LE, Dilsizian V, et al. Appropriate Use Criteria for PET Myocardial Perfusion Imaging. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(8):1221–65.
pubmed: 32747510
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.246280
Packard RRS, Lazewatsky JL, Orlandi C, Maddahi J. Diagnostic performance of PET Versus SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with smaller left ventricles: a substudy of the (18)F-Flurpiridaz phase III clinical trial. J Nucl Med. 2021;62(6):849–54.
pubmed: 33246979
pmcid: 8729859
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.252007
Parker MW, Iskandar A, Limone B, Perugini A, Kim H, Jones C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of cardiac positron emission tomography versus single photon emission computed tomography for coronary artery disease: a bivariate meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(6):700–7.
pubmed: 23051888
doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.112.978270
Sciagrà R, Lubberink M, Hyafil F, Saraste A, Slart RHJA, Agostini D, et al. EANM procedural guidelines for PET/CT quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Nuc Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(4):1040–69.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-05046-9
Narula J, Chandrashekhar Y, Ahmadi A, Abbara S, Berman DS, Blankstein R, et al. SCCT 2021 expert consensus document on coronary computed tomographic angiography: a report of the society of cardiovascular computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2021;15(3):192–217.
pubmed: 33303384
doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2020.11.001
Li DL, Kronenberg MW. Myocardial perfusion and viability imaging in coronary artery disease: clinical value in diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic guidance. Am J Med. 2021;134(8):968–75.
pubmed: 33864764
doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2021.03.011
Mendoza-Ibañez OI, Martínez-Lucio TS, Alexanderson-Rosas E, Slart RHJA. SPECT in Ischemic Heart Diseases. In Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging: Volume 1-4. Vol. 2. Elsevier. 2022. p. 120-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822960-6.00015-6 .
Behrendt C-A, Debus ES, Mani K, Sedrakyan A. The strengths and limitations of claims based research in countries with fee for service reimbursement. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;56(5):615–6.
pubmed: 29960853
doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.06.001