Cost evaluation and comparison of three decision strategies for cardiac revascularization : results of the suspected CAD protocol of the European CMR registry

Background: The public health burden of coronary artery disease (CAD) is important. Perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is generally accepted to detect and monitor CAD. Few studies have so far addressed its costs and costeffectiveness. Objectives: To compare in a large CMR registry the costs of a CMR-guided strategy vs two hypothetical invasive strategies for the diagnosis and the treatment of patients with suspected CAD. Methods: In 3'647 patients with suspected CAD included prospectively in the EuroCMR Registry (59 centers; 18 countries) costs were calculated for diagnostic examinations, revascularizations as well as for complication management over a 1-year follow-up. Patients with ischemia-positive CMR underwent an invasive X-ray coronary angiography (CXA) and revascularization at the discretion of the treating physician (=CMR+CXA strategy). Ischemia was found in 20.9% of patients and 17.4% of them were revascularized. In ischemia-negative patients by CMR, cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarctions occurred in 0.38%/y. In a hypothetical invasive arm the costs were calculated for an initial CXA followed by FFR testing in vessels with ≥50% diameter stenoses (=CXA+FFR strategy). To model this hypothetical arm, the same proportion of ischemic patients and outcome was assumed as for the CMR+CXA strategy. The coronary stenosis - FFR relationship reported in the literature was used to derive the proportion of patients with ≥50% diameter stenoses (Psten) in the study cohort. The costs of a CXA-only strategy were also calculated. Calculations were performed from a third payer perspective for the German, UK, Swiss, and US healthcare systems.

Disease identification based on ambulatory drugs dispensation and in-hospital ICD-10 diagnoses: a comparison.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy-based case mix measures are an alternative source of information to the relatively scarce outpatient diagnoses data. But most published tools use national drug nomenclatures and offer no head-to-head comparisons between drugs-related and diagnoses-based categories. The objective of the study was to test the accuracy of drugs-based morbidity groups derived from the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification of drugs by checking them against diagnoses-based groups. METHODS: We compared drugs-based categories with their diagnoses-based analogues using anonymous data on 108,915 individuals insured with one of four companies. They were followed throughout 2005 and 2006 and hospitalized at least once during this period. The agreement between the two approaches was measured by weighted kappa coefficients. The reproducibility of the drugs-based morbidity measure over the 2 years was assessed for all enrollees. RESULTS: Eighty percent used a drug associated with at least one of the 60 morbidity categories derived from drugs dispensation. After accounting for inpatient under-coding, fifteen conditions agreed sufficiently with their diagnoses-based counterparts to be considered alternative strategies to diagnoses. In addition, they exhibited good reproducibility and allowed prevalence estimates in accordance with national estimates. For 22 conditions, drugs-based information identified accurately a subset of the population defined by diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Most categories provide insurers with health status information that could be exploited for healthcare expenditure prediction or ambulatory cost control, especially when ambulatory diagnoses are not available. However, due to insufficient concordance with their diagnoses-based analogues, their use for morbidity indicators is limited.