Diagnostic Performance and Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Non-invasive Imaging Tests in Patients Presenting with Chronic Stable Chest Pain with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Overview

Current Cardiology Reports

Volumn 16, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 1-14

  van Waardhuizen, Claudia N ^a,e   Langhout, Marieke ^a   Ly, Felisia ^a   Braun, Loes ^a   Genders, Tessa S S ^a   Petersen, Steffen E ^b   Fleischmann, Kirsten E ^c   Nieman, Koen ^a   Hunink, M G Myriam ^a,d  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^e Department of Tertiary care Quality Audits and Finance Association of Tertiary Medical Teaching Hospitals (STZ)   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Comparative cost effectiveness; Coronary artery disease; Non invasive diagnostic imaging; Stable chest pain; Willingness to pay threshold

Indexed keywords

ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; CARDIAC IMAGING; CARDIOVASCULAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; CORONARY ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FRACTIONAL FLOW RESERVE; HUMAN; MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; STRESS ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THORAX PAIN;

EID: 84910641393     PISSN: 15233782     EISSN: 15343170     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11886-014-0537-9     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. World Health Organization. The Global burden of disease: 2004 update. 2008 05-02-2014]; Available from: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/2004_report_update/en/.
2. Lloyd-Jones DM et al. Framingham risk score and prediction of lifetime risk for coronary heart disease. Am J Cardiol. 2004;94(1):20–4.
3. Hemingway H et al. Prevalence of angina in women versus men: a systematic review and meta-analysis of international variations across 31 countries. Circulation. 2008;117(12):1526–36.
4. Sekhri N et al. Incremental prognostic value of the exercise electrocardiogram in the initial assessment of patients with suspected angina: cohort study. BMJ. 2008;337:a2240.
5. Beltrame JF et al. The prevalence of weekly angina among patients with chronic stable angina in primary care practices: the coronary artery disease in general practice (CADENCE) study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(16):1491–9.
6. Cooper A, Timmis A, Skinner J. Assessment of recent onset chest pain or discomfort of suspected cardiac origin: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ (Online). 2010;340(7749):757.
7. Fihn SD et al. ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart diseases. Circulation. 2012;126(25):e354–471. This paper reports the most recent guidelines for the workup of patients with chest pain suspected of having CAD. These guidelines are for the USA. The most recent European guidelines were published in 2006 (see Fox, reference 8) and those for the UK were published in 2010 (see Cooper, reference 6).
8. Fox K et al. Guidelines on the management of stable angina pectoris: executive summary: the task force on the management of stable angina pectoris of the european society of cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(11):1341–81.
9. Wijns W et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(20):2501–55.
10. Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Fleischmann KE, Hunink MG. Stress echocardiography, stress single-photon-emission computed tomography and electron beam computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of diagnostic performance. Am Heart J. 2007;154:415–23.
11. Moher D et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
12. Husereau D et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health. 2013;16(2):e1–5.
13. Abdulla J et al. Evaluation of aortic valve stenosis by cardiac multislice computed tomography compared with echocardiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2009;18(6):634–43.
14. Springer I, Dewey M. Comparison of multislice computed tomography with intravascular ultrasound for detection and characterization of coronary artery plaques: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71(2):275–82.
15. von Ballmoos MW et al. Meta-analysis: diagnostic performance of low-radiation-dose coronary computed tomography angiography. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(6):413–20.
16. Pontone G et al. Radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy of multidetector computed tomography for the detection of significant coronary artery stenoses: a meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2012;160(3):155–64.
17. Salavati A et al. Dual-source computed tomography angiography for diagnosis and assessment of coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012;6(2):78–90.
18. Li S et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 320-slice computed tomography angiography for detection of coronary artery stenosis: meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(3):2699–705.
19. Schuetz GM et al. Meta-analysis: noninvasive coronary angiography using computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(3):167–77.
20. Hamon M et al. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for detection of coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2010;12(1):29.
21. Desai RR, Jha S. Diagnostic performance of cardiac stress perfusion MRI in the detection of coronary artery disease using fractional flow reserve as the reference standard: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(2):W245–52.
22. de Jong MC et al. Diagnostic performance of stress myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(9):1881–95.
23. Jaarsma C et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive myocardial perfusion imaging using single-photon emission computed tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance, and positron emission tomography imaging for the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(19):1719–28.
24. Mc Ardle BA et al. 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.
25. Iskandar A et al. Gender differences in the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: a bivariate meta-analysis. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20(1):53–63.
26. Amemiya S, Takao H. Computed tomographic coronary angiography for diagnosing stable coronary artery disease—a cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis. Circ J. 2009;73(7):1263–70.
27. Genders TSS et al. CT coronary angiography in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease: decision making from various perspectives in the face of uncertainty. Radiology. 2009;253(3):734–44.
28. Kreisz FP et al. The pre-test risk stratified cost-effectiveness of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography in the detection of significant obstructive coronary artery disease in patients otherwise referred to invasive coronary angiography. Heart Lung Circ. 2009;18(3):200–7.
29. Catalan P, Callejo D, Blasco JA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of 64-slice computed tomography vs. cardiac catheterization to rule out coronary artery disease before non-coronary cardiovascular surgery. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;14(2):149–57.
30. Min JK et al. 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.
31. Meyer M et al. Cost-effectiveness of substituting dual-energy CT for SPECT in the assessment of myocardial perfusion for the workup of coronary artery disease. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(12):3719–25.
32. Genders TSS et al. Coronary computed tomography versus exercise testing in patients with stable chest pain: comparative effectiveness and costs. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(4):1268–75.
33. Ladapo JA et al. Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of coronary computed tomography angiography in the evaluation of patients with chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(25):2409–22.
34. Iwata K, Ogasawara K. Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of stress myocardial perfusion MRI and SPECT in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Radiol Phys Technol. 2013;6(1):28–34.
35. Boldt J et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease in Germany. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15(1):30.
36. Walker S et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease: an economic evaluation using data from the CE-MARC study. Heart. 2013;99(12):873–81.
37. Mahajan N et al. Diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion imaging and stress echocardiography for the diagnosis of left main and triple vessel coronary artery disease: a comparative meta-analysis. Heart. 2010;96(12):956–66.
38. Genders TSS et al. Prediction model to estimate presence of coronary artery disease: retrospective pooled analysis of existing cohorts. Br Med J. 2012;344:e3485. This study provides a prediction model for predicting the prior probability of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with chest pain. The prediction model is based on a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data. The model can be used to guide further management in patients with chest pain.