Cost-effective selection of patients for coronary angiography

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

Volumn 4, Issue 2 PART II, 1997, Pages

  Maddahi, Jamshid ^a   Gambhir, Sanjiv S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

CAD nuclear cardiology; Cost effectiveness; Diagnosis; Prognosis

Indexed keywords

ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; CONFERENCE PAPER; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ELECTROCARDIOGRAM; HEART MUSCLE REVASCULARIZATION; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADULT; AGED; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY DISEASE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION TREES; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; EXERCISE TEST; FEMALE; HEART; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MYOCARDIAL REVASCULARIZATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PROGNOSIS; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, EMISSION-COMPUTED; TOMOGRAPHY, EMISSION-COMPUTED, SINGLE-PHOTON; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0030898694     PISSN: 10713581     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s1071-3581(97)90093-3     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Gambhir S, Hoh CK, Phelps M, Madar I, Maddahi J. Decision tree sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in the staging and management of non-small-cell lung carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1996;37:1428-36.
2. Luce B, Simpson K. Methods of cost-effectiveness analysis: areas of consensus and debate. Clin Ther 1995;17:109-25.
3. Weinstein M, Fineberg H, As E. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia: WE Saunders, 1980.
4. Habbema J, Bossuyt P, Dippel D, Marshall S, Hilden J. Analyzing clinical decision analyses. Stat Med 1990;9:1229-42.
5. Gambhir SS, Gupta P, Allen M, Hendi P, Hoh C, Maddahi J, et al. A simulation tool for modeling cost-effectiveness with applications for determining the cost-effectiveness role of nuclear medicine studies in lung and breast cancer [abstract]. J Nucl Med 1996;37(suppl):301P.
6. Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1979;300:1350-8.
7. Gianrossi R, Detrano R, Mulvihill D, Lehmann K, Dubach P, Colombo A, et al. Exercise-induced ST depression in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Circulation 1989;80:87-98.
8. Maddahi J. Myocardial perfusion imaging for the detection and evaluation of coronary artery disease. In: Marcus cardiac imaging: a companion to Braunwald's heart disease. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1996:971-95.
9. Iskandrian A, Heo J, Kong B, et al. Effect of exercise level on the ability of thallium-201 tomographic imaging in detecting coronary artery disease: analysis of 461 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;14:1477-86.
10. Maddahi J, Van Train K, Prigent F, Garcia EV, Friedman J, Ostzega E, et al. Quantitative single photon emission computerized thallium-201 tomography for detection and localization of coronary artery disease: optimization and prospective validation of a new technique. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;14:1689-99.
11. DePasquale E, Nody A, DePuey E, et al. Quantitative rotational thallium-201 tomography for identifying and localizing coronary artery disease. Circulation 1988;77:316-27.
12. Mahmarian JJ, Boyce TM, Goldberg R, Cocanougher MK, Roberts R, Verani MS, et al. Quantitative exercise thallium-201 single-photon emission computed tomography for the enhanced diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990;15:318-29.
13. Tamaki N, Yonekura Y, Mukai T, Kodama S, Radota K, Kambara H, et al. Stress Tl-201 transaxial emission computed tomography: quantitative vs qualitative analysis for evaluation of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1984;4:1213-21.
14. Van Train K, Maddahi J, Herman D, et al. Quantitative analysis of tomographic stress thallium-201 myocardial scintigrams: a multicenter trial. J Nucl Med 1990;31:1168.
15. Tamaki N, Yonekura Y, Senda M, et al. Value and limitation of stress thallium-201 single photon emission computed tomography: comparison with nitrogen-13 ammonia positron tomography. J Nucl Med 1988;29:1181-8.
16. 13NH3 and positron computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 1982;49:1197-207.
17. Tamaki N, Yonekura Y, Senda M, et al. Myocardial positron computed tomography with N-13 ammonia at rest and during exercise. Eur J Nucl Med 1985;11:246-51.
18. 13N-ammonia and high-resolution positron emission computed tomography. Am Heart J 1987;113:645-54.
19. Go R, Warwick T, MacIntyre W, et al. A prospective comparison of rubidium-82 PET and thallium-201 SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging utilizing a single dipyridamole stress in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med 1990;31:1899-905.
20. Stewart R, Schwaiger M, Molina E, Popma J, Gacioch GM, Kalus M. Comparison of rubidium-82 positron emission tomography and thallim-201 SPECT imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1991;67:1303-10.
21. Demer L, Gould K, Goldstein R. et al. Diagnosis of coronary artery disease by positron imaging: comparison to quantitative arteriography in 193 patients. Circulation 1989;79:825-35.
22. Khanna S, De Groof M, Maddahi J, et al. Quantitative analysis of adenosine stress N-13 ammonia myocardial perfusion PET: definition of normal limits and criteria for detection and localization of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med 1992;33:825.
23. Uhl G, Kay T, Hickman J, et al. Detection of coronary artery disease in asymptomatic aircrew members with thallium-201 scintigraphy. Aviat Environ Med 1980;51:1250-5.
24. Uhl G, Kay T, Hickman J, et al. Computer-enhanced thallium scintigrams in asymptomatic men with abnormal exercise tests. Am J Cardiol 1981;48:1037-43.