Purpose: This study evaluated the incremental value and cost-effectiveness ratio of introducing coronary angiography (CA) with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT-CA) in the diagnostic management of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with the traditional diagnostic workup.
Material and methods: Five hundred and fifty consecutive patients who underwent MDCT-CA between January 2009 and June 2011 were considered. Patients with atypical chest pain and suspected obstructive CAD were directed to one of two diagnostic pathways: the traditional protocol (examination, stress test, CA) and the current protocol (examination, stress test, MDCT-CA, and CA, if necessary). The costs of each protocol and for the individual method were calculated. Based on the results, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the two diagnostic pathways was compared. A third, modified, diagnostic pathway has been proposed with its relative cost-effectiveness ratio (examination, MDCT-CA, stress test, and CA, if necessary).
Results: Stress test vs. MDCT-CA had an accuracy of 66%, a sensitivity and specificity of 21% and 87%, respectively, and a positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive value of 40% and 70%, respectively. Comparison between conventional CA (CCA) and MDCT-CA showed a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 89%, respectively, a PPV and NPV of 89%, and an accuracy of 92%. The traditional protocol has higher costs than the second protocol: 1,645 euro against 322 euro (mean), but it shows a better cost-effectiveness ratio. The new proposed protocol has lower costs, mean 261 euro, with a better costeffectiveness ratio than the traditional protocol.
Conclusions: The diagnostic protocol for patients with suspected CAD has been modified by the introduction of MDCT-CA. Our study confirms the greater diagnostic performance of MDCT-CA compared with stress test and its similar accuracy to CCA. The use of MDCT-CA to select patients for CCA has a favourable cost-effectiveness profile.