The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 731–742 | Cite as

Cost-effectiveness analysis of new generation coronary CT scanners for difficult-to-image patients

  • L. T. Burgers
  • W. K. Redekop
  • M. J. Al
  • S. K. Lhachimi
  • N. Armstrong
  • S. Walker
  • C. Rothery
  • M. Westwood
  • J. L. Severens
Original Paper



New generation dual-source coronary CT (NGCCT) scanners with more than 64 slices were evaluated for patients with (known) or suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD) who are difficult to image: obese, coronary calcium score > 400, arrhythmias, previous revascularization, heart rate > 65 beats per minute, and intolerance of betablocker. A cost-effectiveness analysis of NGCCT compared with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was performed for these difficult-to-image patients for England and Wales.

Methods and results

Five models (diagnostic decision model, four Markov models for CAD progression, stroke, radiation and general population) were integrated to estimate the cost-effectiveness of NGCCT for both suspected and known CAD populations. The lifetime costs and effects from the National Health Service perspective were estimated for three strategies: (1) patients diagnosed using ICA, (2) using NGCCT, and (3) patients diagnosed using a combination of NGCCT and, if positive, followed by ICA. In the suspected population, the strategy where patients only undergo a NGCCT is a cost-effective option at accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds. The strategy of using NGCCT in combination with ICA is the most favourable strategy for patients with known CAD. The most influential factors behind these results are the percentage of patients being misclassified (a function of both diagnostic accuracy and the prior likelihood), the complication rates of the procedures, and the cost price of a NGCCT scan.


The use of NGCCT might be considered cost-effective in both populations since it is cost-saving compared to ICA and generates similar effects.


Cost-effectiveness CT scanner Coronary artery disease Radiation Imaging 



The authors acknowledge the clinical advice and expert opinion provided by: Ruth Clarke, Trainee Consultant Radiographer, Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust; Francesca Pugliese, Senior Lecturer and Consultant Radiologist, Barts and the London NHS Trust; Ramesh De Silva, Consultant Interventional Cardiologist, Bedford hospital NHS Trust; Carl Roobottom, Professor of Radiology and Consultant Radiologist, Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust; Leo Hofstra, Professor of Cardiology, University Hospital Maastricht, the Netherlands. Furthermore, we would like acknowledge Valerie Fone, Trust Imaging Services Manager, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust who provided NHS cost information for cardiac CT. Thanks to Mark Sculpher, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK, for making the CE-MARC, EUROPA and York Radiation Models available.

Compliance with ethical standards


This report was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (Project No. 10/107/01) and commissioned on behalf of NICE. It will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 17, No. 9. See the HTA Programme website ( for further project information. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health.

Supplementary material

10198_2016_824_MOESM1_ESM.doc (64 kb)
Table S1 presents the input parameters that were used for the economic evaluation (DOC 63 kb)


  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Chest pain of recent onset: assessment and diagnosis of recent onset chest pain or discomfort of suspected cardiac origin. Clinical Guidelines 95. NICE, London. (2010). Accessed 16 May 2011
  2. 2.
    Mowatt, G., Cummins, E., Waugh, N., Walker, S., Cook, J., Jia, X., Hillis, G.S., Fraser, C.: Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease. Health Technol. Assess. 12(17), iii–iv, ix–143 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schuetz, G.M., Zacharopoulou, N.M., Schlattmann, P., Dewey, M.: Meta-analysis: noninvasive coronary angiography using computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. Ann. Intern. Med. 152(3), 167–177 (2010)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khan, R., Rawal, S., Eisenberg, M.J.: Transitioning from 16-slice to 64-slice multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery disease: are we really making progress? Can. J. Cardiol. 25(9), 533–542 (2009)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raff, G.L., Gallagher, M.J., O’Neill, W.W., Goldstein, J.A.: Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 46(3), 552–557 (2005)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Westwood, M., Al, M., Burgers, L., Redekop, K., Lhachimi, S., Armstrong, N.: A systematic review and economic evaluation of new-generation computed tomography scanners for imaging in coronary artery disease and congenital heart disease: Somatom Definition Flash, Aquilion ONE, Brilliance iCT and Discovery CT750 HD. Health Technol. Assess. 17(9), 1–243 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walker, S., Girardin, F., McKenna, C., Ball, S.G., Nixon, J., Plein, S., Greenwood, J.P., Sculpher, M.: Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease: an economic evaluation using data from the CE-MARC study. Heart 99(12), 873–881 (2013)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Briggs, A., Mihaylova, B., Sculpher, M., Hall, A., Wolstenholme, J., Simoons, M., Deckers, J., Ferrari, R., Remme, W.J., Bertrand, M., Fox, K.: EUROPA Trial Investigators: cost effectiveness of perindopril in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease using data from the EUROPA study. Heart 93(9), 1081–1086 (2007)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McKenna, C., Wade, R., Faria, R., Yang, H., Stirk, L., Gummerson, N., Sculpher, M., Woolacott, N.: EOS 2D/3D X-ray imaging system: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 16(14), 1–188 (2012)CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Westwood, M.E., Raatz, H.D., Misso, K., Burgers, L., Redekop, K., Lhachimi, S.K., Armstrong, N., Kleijnen, J.: Systematic review of the accuracy of dual-source cardiac CT for detection of arterial stenosis in difficult-to-image patient groups. Radiology 267(2), 387–395 (2013)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    West, R., Ellis, G., Brooks, N., Joint Audit Committee of the British Cardiac Society and Royal College of Physicians of London: Complications of diagnostic cardiac catheterisation: results from a confidential inquiry into cardiac catheter complications. Heart 92(6), 810–814 (2006)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tarakji, K.G., Sabik 3rd, J.F., Bhudia, S.K., Batizy, L.H., Blackstone, E.H.: Temporal onset, risk factors, and outcomes associated with stroke after coronary artery bypass grafting. JAMA 305(4), 381–390 (2011)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Serruys, P.W., Unger, F., Sousa, J.E., Jatene, A., Bonnier, H.J., Schonberger, J.P., Buller, N., Bonser, R., van den Brand, M.J., van Herwerden, L.A., Morel, M.A., van Hout, B.A.: Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study Group: comparison of coronary-artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 344(15), 1117–1124 (2001)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rajani, R., Lindblom, M., Dixon, G., Khawaja, M., Hildick-Smith, D., Holmberg, S.: Evolving trends in percutaneous coronary intervention. Br. J. Cardiol. 18, 73–76 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bridgewater, B., Grayson, A.D., Brooks, N., Grotte, G., Fabri, B.M., Au, J., Hooper, T., Jones, M., Keogh, B.: North west quality improvement programme in cardiac interventions: has the publication of cardiac surgery outcome data been associated with changes in practice in northwest England: an analysis of 25,730 patients undergoing CABG surgery under 30 surgeons over eight years. Heart 93(6), 744–748 (2007)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Government Statistical Service, Office for National Statistics: Mortality statistics (cause). Review of the Registrar General on deaths by cause, sex, and age, in England and Wales, DH2 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandercock, P., Berge, E., Dennis, M., Forbes, J., Hand, P., Kwan, J., Lewis, S., Lindley, R., Neilson, A., Wardlaw, J.: Cost-effectiveness of thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke assessed by a model based on UK NHS costs. Stroke 35(6), 1490–1497 (2004)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Personal Social Services Research Unit. Unit costs of health and social care. University of Kent, Canterbury. (2010). Accessed 16 May 2011
  19. 19.
    Fox, K.M.: European trial on reduction of cardiac events with perindopril in stable coronary artery disease investigators: efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study). Lancet 362(9386), 782–788 (2003)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kind, P., Hardman, G., Macran, S.: UK population norms for EQ-5D. Discussion paper 172. (1999). Accessed 16 May 2011
  21. 21.
    Longworth, L., Buxton, M.J., Sculpher, M., Smith, D.H.: Estimating utility data from clinical indicators for patients with stable angina. Eur. J. Health Econ. 6(4), 347–353 (2005)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Henderson, R.A., Pocock, S.J., Clayton, T.C., Knight, R., Fox, K.A., Julian, D.G., Chamberlain, D.A.: Second Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA-2) Trial Participants: seven-year outcome in the RITA-2 trial: coronary angioplasty versus medical therapy. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 42(7), 1161–1170 (2003)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sullivan, P.W., Ghushchyan, V.: Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med. Decis. Mak. 26(4), 410–420 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (N1618). (2008). Accessed 16 May 2011
  25. 25.
    Ladapo, J.A., Jaffer, F.A., Hoffmann, U., Thomson, C.C., Bamberg, F., Dec, W., Cutler, D.M., Weinstein, M.C., Gazelle, G.S.: Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of coronary computed tomography angiography in the evaluation of patients with chest pain. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 54(25), 2409–2422 (2009)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Amemiya, S., Takao, H.: Computed tomographic coronary angiography for diagnosing stable coronary artery disease: a cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis. Circ. J. 73(7), 1263–1270 (2009)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Genders, T.S., Meijboom, W.B., Meijs, M.F., Schuijf, J.D., Mollet, N.R., Weustink, A.C., Pugliese, F., Bax, J.J., Cramer, M.J., Krestin, G.P., de Feyter, P.J., Hunink, M.G.: CT coronary angiography in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease: decision making from various perspectives in the face of uncertainty. Radiology 253(3), 734–744 (2009)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Darlington, M., Gueret, P., Laissy, J.P., Pierucci, A.F., Maoulida, H., Quelen, C., Niarra, R., Chatellier, G., Durand-Zaleski, I.: Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional invasive coronary angiography. Eur. J. Health Econ. 16(6), 647–655 (2015)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tonino, P.A., Fearon, W.F., De Bruyne, B., Oldroyd, K.G., Leesar, M.A., Ver Lee, P.N., Maccarthy, P.A., Van’t Veer, M., Pijls, N.H.: Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55(25), 2816–2821 (2010)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    New generation cardiac CT scanners (Aquilion ONE, Brilliance iCT, Discovery CT750 HD and Somatom Definition Flash) for cardiac imaging in people with suspected or known coronary artery disease in whom imaging is difficult with earlier generation CT scanners NICE diagnostics guidance 3. NICE, London. (2012). Accessed 09 2012
  31. 31.
    Severens, J.L., Brunenberg, D.E., Fenwick, E.A., O’Brien, B., Joore, M.A.: Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and a reluctance to lose. Pharmacoeconomics 23(12), 1207–1214 (2005)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Welte, R., Feenstra, T., Jager, H., Leidl, R.: A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. Pharmacoeconomics 22(13), 857–876 (2004)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Department of Health. NHS Reference costs 2010/11. Collection Guidance. Department of Health, London. (2010). Accessed 16 May 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. T. Burgers
    • 1
    • 2
  • W. K. Redekop
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. J. Al
    • 2
  • S. K. Lhachimi
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • N. Armstrong
    • 4
  • S. Walker
    • 5
  • C. Rothery
    • 5
  • M. Westwood
    • 4
  • J. L. Severens
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Medical Technology AssessmentErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute of Health Policy and ManagementErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Research Group for Evidence-Based Public HealthBIPS -Leibniz-Institute für Prevention Research und EpidemiologyBremenGermany
  4. 4.Kleijnen Systematic Reviews LtdYorkUK
  5. 5.Centre for Health EconomicsUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations