European Radiology

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 1301–1309 | Cite as

Cost effectiveness of coronary angiography and calcium scoring using CT and stress MRI for diagnosis of coronary artery disease

  • Marc Dewey
  • Bernd Hamm


We compared the cost effectiveness of recent approaches [coronary angiography and calcium scoring using computed tomography (CT) and stress magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] to the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) with those of the traditional diagnostic modalities [conventional angiography (CATH), exercise ECG, and stress echocardiography] using a decision tree model. For patients with a 10% to 50% pretest likelihood of coronary artery disease, non-invasive coronary angiography using CT was the most cost effective approach, with costs per correctly identified CAD patient of €4,435 (10% likelihood) to €1,469 (50% likelihood). Only for a pretest likelihood of 30% to 40% was calcium scoring using CT more cost effective than any of the traditional diagnostic modalities, while MRI was not cost effective for any pretest likelihood. At a pretest likelihood of 60%, CT coronary angiography and CATH were equally effective, while CATH was most cost effective for a pretest likelihood of at least 70%. In conclusion, up to a pretest likelihood for coronary artery disease of 50%, CT coronary angiography is the most cost-effective procedure, being superior to the other new modalities and the most commonly used traditional diagnostic modalities. With a very high likelihood for disease (above 60%), CATH is the most effective procedure from the perspective of society.


Cost effectiveness Computed tomography Magnetic resonance imaging Coronary angiography Coronary disease Stress echocardiography Exercise electrocardiography 


  1. 1.
    Drummond MF, Jefferson TO (1996) Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ economic evaluation working party. BMJ 313:275–283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lipton MJ, Metz CE (2000) Cost effectiveness in radiology. Eur Radiol 10 [Suppl 3]:S390–S392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McNeil BJ (2000) Changing roles of decision analysis and cost effectiveness analyses in medicine and radiology. Eur Radiol 10 [Suppl 3]:S340–S343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garber AM, Solomon NA (1999) Cost effectiveness of alternative test strategies for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 130:719–728PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuntz KM, Fleischmann KE, Hunink MG, Douglas PS (1999) Cost effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for patients with chest pain. Ann Intern Med 130:709–718PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patterson RE, Eng C, Horowitz SF, Gorlin R, Goldstein SR (1984) Bayesian comparison of cost effectiveness of different clinical approaches to diagnose coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 4:278–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patterson RE, Eisner RL, Horowitz SF (1995) Comparison of cost effectiveness and utility of exercise ECG, single photon emission computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and coronary angiography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Circulation 91:54–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dewey M, Hamm B (2003) Cost effectiveness in diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Fortschr Rontgenstr 175:749–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rumberger JA, Behrenbeck T, Breen JF, Sheedy PF 2nd (1999) Coronary calcification by electron beam computed tomography and obstructive coronary artery disease: a model for costs and effectiveness of diagnosis as compared with conventional cardiac testing methods. J Am Coll Cardiol 33:453–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alanen J, Keski-Nisula L, Blanco-Sequeiros R, Tervonen O (2004) Cost comparison analysis of low-field (0.23 T) MRI- and CT-guided bone biopsies. Eur Radiol 14:123–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heller D, Hricak H (2000) Cost effectiveness of new technologies for staging endometrial cancer. Eur Radiol 10 [Suppl 3]:S381–S385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hövels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM, Jager GJ, Barentsz JO (2004) Cost-analysis of staging methods for lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: MRI with a lymph node-specific contrast agent compared to pelvic lymph node dissection or CT. Eur Radiol 14:1707–1712PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Becker CR (2005) Coronary CT angiography in symptomatic patients. Eur Radiol 15 [Suppl 2]:B33–B41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bogaert J, Dymarkowski S (2005) Delayed contrast-enhanced MRI: use in myocardial viability assessment and other cardiac pathology. Eur Radiol 15 [Suppl 2]:B52–B58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dewey M, Borges AC, Kivelitz D et al (2004) Coronary artery disease: new insights and their implications for radiology. Eur Radiol 14:1048–1054PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lipton MJ, Bogaert J, Boxt LM, Reba RC (2002) Imaging of ischemic heart disease. Eur Radiol 12:1061–1080PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pugliese F, Mollet NR, Runza G et al (2005) Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive 64-slice CT coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris. Eur Radiol:1–8Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klever-Deichert G, Hinzpeter B, Hunsche E, Lauterbach KW (1999) Costs of coronary heart diseases over the remaining life time in coronary heart disease cases—an analysis of the current status of coronary heart disease cases in Germany from the social perspective. Z Kardiol 88:991–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dewey M, Hamm B (2004) Comparison of the cost effectiveness of the most common diagnostic methods for coronary artery disease. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 129:1415–1419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diamond GA, Forrester JS (1979) Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med 300:1350–1358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pryor DB, Shaw L, McCants CB et al (1993) Value of the history and physical in identifying patients at increased risk for coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 118:81–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horiguchi J, Fukuda H, Yamamoto H et al (2006) The impact of motion artifacts on the reproducibility of repeated coronary artery calcium measurements. Eur Radiol. DOI 10.1007/s00330-006-0278-2
  23. 23.
    Mahnken AH, Muhlenbruch G, Koos R et al (2006) Influence of a small field-of-view size on the detection of coronary artery calcifications with MSCT: in vitro and in vivo study. Eur Radiol 16:358–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wintersperger BJ, Nikolaou K (2005) Basics of cardiac MDCT: techniques and contrast application. Eur Radiol 15 [Suppl 2]:B2–B9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nallamothu BK, Saint S, Bielak LF et al (2001) Electron-beam computed tomography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 161:833–838PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nagel E, Lehmkuhl HB, Bocksch W et al (1999) Noninvasive diagnosis of ischemia-induced wall motion abnormalities with the use of high-dose dobutamine stress MRI: comparison with dobutamine stress echocardiography. Circulation 99:763–770PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sommer T, Hofer U, Omran H, Schild H (2002) Stress cine MRI for detection of coronary artery disease. Fortschr Roentgenstr 174:605–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kwok Y, Kim C, Grady D, Segal M, Redberg R (1999) Meta-analysis of exercise testing to detect coronary artery disease in women. Am J Cardiol 83:660–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Beasley JW et al (1997) ACC/AHA Guidelines for exercise testing. A report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines (Committee on Exercise Testing). J Am Coll Cardiol 30:260–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fleischmann KE, Hunink MG, Kuntz KM, Douglas PS (1998) Exercise echocardiography or exercise SPECT imaging? A meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance. JAMA 280:913–920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Geleijnse ML, Fioretti PM, Roelandt JR (1997) Methodology, feasibility, safety and diagnostic accuracy of dobutamine stress echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 30:595–606PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K (1990) Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese committee on the safety of contrast media. Radiology 175:621–628PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hiro J, Hiro T, Reid CL, Ebrahimi R, Matsuzaki M, Gardin JM (1997) Safety and results of dobutamine stress echocardiography in women versus men and in patients older and younger than 75 years of age. Am J Cardiol 80:1014–1020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mertes H, Sawada SG, Ryan T et al (1993) Symptoms, adverse effects, and complications associated with dobutamine stress echocardiography. Experience in 1118 patients. Circulation 88:15–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Picano E, Mathias W Jr, Pingitore A, Bigi R, Previtali M (1994) Safety and tolerability of dobutamine–atropine stress echocardiography: a prospective, multicentre study. Echo Dobutamine International Cooperative Study Group. Lancet 344:1190–1192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Secknus MA, Marwick TH (1997) Evolution of dobutamine echocardiography protocols and indications: safety and side effects in 3011 studies over 5 years. J Am Coll Cardiol 29:1234–1240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bundesgeschäftsstelle, Qualitätssicherung. BQS Qualitätsreport 2001., pp 88–95
  38. 38.
    Noto TJ Jr, Johnson LW, Krone R et al (1991) Cardiac catheterization 1990: a report of the Registry of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCA&I). Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn 24:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nieman K, Cademartiri F, Lemos PA, Raaijmakers R, Pattynama PM, de Feyter PJ (2002) Reliable noninvasive coronary angiography with fast submillimeter multislice spiral computed tomography. Circulation 106:2051–2054PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ropers D, Baum U, Pohle K et al (2003) Detection of coronary artery stenoses with thin-slice multi-detector row spiral computed tomography and multiplanar reconstruction. Circulation 107:664–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, Nieman K et al (2004) Multislice spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris. J Am Coll Cardiol 43:2265–2270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hoffmann U, Moselewski F, Cury RC et al (2004) Predictive value of 16-slice multidetector spiral computed tomography to detect significant obstructive coronary artery disease in patients at high risk for coronary artery disease: patient-versus segment-based analysis. Circulation 110:2638–2643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, Krestin GP et al (2005) Improved diagnostic accuracy with 16-row multi-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 45:128–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hoffmann MH, Shi H, Schmitz BL et al (2005) Noninvasive coronary angiography with multislice computed tomography. JAMA 293:2471–2478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dewey M, Teige F, Schnapauff D et al (2006) Noninvasive detection of coronary artery stenoses with multislice computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Intern Med (in press)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Achenbach S, Ropers D, Pohle FK et al (2005) Detection of coronary artery stenoses using multi-detector CT with 16×0.75 collimation and 375 ms rotation. Eur Heart J (Epub)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kefer J, Coche E, Legros G et al (2005) Head-to-head comparison of three-dimensional navigator-gated magnetic resonance imaging and 16-slice computed tomography to detect coronary artery stenosis in patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 46:92–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Leber AW, Knez A, von Ziegler F et al (2005) Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography: a comparative study with quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 46:147–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Martuscelli E, Romagnoli A, D’Eliseo A et al (2004) Accuracy of thin-slice computed tomography in the detection of coronary stenoses. Eur Heart J 25:1043–1048PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Raff GL, Gallagher MJ, O’Neill WW, Goldstein JA (2005) Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 46:552–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kassenärztliche, Bundesvereinigung. Einheitlicher Bewertungsmaßstab (EBM 2000plus) 2005.
  52. 52.
    Tegtbur U, Machold H, Brinkmeier U, Busse M (2001) Ambulante kardiale Langzeitrehabilitation: 1-Jahres-Ergebnisse. Gesundheitswesen 63 [Suppl 1]:S39–S42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    OECD. GDP per capita, 2001. In: OECD, 2003Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gandjour A, Lauterbach KW (2002) Cost effectiveness of quality improvement measures in health care. Med Klin 97:499–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Elkin M (1982) President’s address. Issues in radiology related to the new technologies. Radiology 143:1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Charité, Medical SchoolHumboldt UniversityBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations