Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-Effectiveness of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance

  • Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (E Nagel, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the context of the dramatic growth of health care, the costs associated with cardiovascular imaging have come under increasing scrutiny. Increasingly, the clinical use of cardiovascular imaging requires justification with respect to both its clinical value and cost-effectiveness. Indeed, the use of cardiovascular imaging has been questioned due to a lack of evidence that its inclusion in a testing strategy will result in enhanced patient benefit. To this end, we review the basic principles and methods of cost-effectiveness analyses as applied to cardiovascular imaging. Further, we review cost-effectiveness studies of cardiac MR imaging to determine the depth of available evidence supporting this modality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Foot DK, Lewis RP, Pearson TA, Beller GA. Demographics and cardiology, 1950–2050. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35(5 Suppl B):66B–80B.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. National health expenditure data. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; 2008.

  3. Rapid Spending Growth and Shift to Physician Offices Indicate Need for CMS to Consider Additional Management Practices. Vol. 2011; 2008.

  4. Dewey M, Hamm B. Cost effectiveness of coronary angiography and calcium scoring using CT and stress MRI for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(5):1301–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5(4):559–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nandalur KR, Dwamena BA, Choudhri AF, Nandalur MR, Carlos RC. Diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(14):1343–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. • Bingham SE, Hachamovitch R. Incremental prognostic significance of combined cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, adenosine stress perfusion, delayed enhancement, and left ventricular function over preimaging information for the prediction of adverse events. Circulation. 2011;123(14):1509–18. The largest study to date examining the incremental prognostic value of CMR over pre-stress imaging data. The authors examine the relative value of delayed enhancement, stress perfusion, and left ventricular function individually. As importantly, this study was performed in outpatients presenting for testing at a non-academic, private practice setting..

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. • Cheong BY, Muthupillai R, Wilson JM, et al. Prognostic significance of delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging: survival of 857 patients with and without left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation. 2009;120(21):2069–76. The largest study to date examining outcomes after delayed enhancement CMR imaging in patients with or without prior CAD found that scar by CMR was both an independent and incremental predictor of mortality or cardiac transplantation on follow-up. This was found to be the case both in patients with and without prior CAD. Further, DE also added incrementally over LVEF..

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim HW, Klem I, Shah DJ, et al. Unrecognized non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: prevalence and prognostic significance in patients with suspected coronary disease. PLoS Med. 2009;6(4):e1000057.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kwon DH, Halley CM, Carrigan TP, et al. Extent of left ventricular scar predicts outcomes in ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with significantly reduced systolic function: a delayed hyperenhancement cardiac magnetic resonance study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2(1):34–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kwong RY, Chan AK, Brown KA, et al. Impact of unrecognized myocardial scar detected by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on event-free survival in patients presenting with signs or symptoms of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2006;113(23):2733–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rahimi K, Banning AP, Cheng AS, et al. Prognostic value of coronary revascularisation-related myocardial injury: a cardiac magnetic resonance imaging study. Heart. 2009;95(23):1937–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Assomull RG, Prasad SK, Lyne J, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance, fibrosis, and prognosis in dilated cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(10):1977–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hombach V, Merkle N, Torzewski J, et al. Electrocardiographic and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging parameters as predictors of a worse outcome in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Eur Heart J. 2009;30(16):2011–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wu KC, Weiss RG, Thiemann DR, et al. Late gadolinium enhancement by cardiovascular magnetic resonance heralds an adverse prognosis in nonischemic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(25):2414–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sharples L, Hughes V, Crean A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of functional cardiac testing in the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease: a randomised controlled trial. The CECaT trial. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(49):iii–iv, ix–115.

  17. Pilz G, Jeske A, Klos M, et al. Prognostic value of normal adenosine-stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101(10):1408–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Miller CD, Hwang W, Hoekstra JW, et al. Stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with observation unit care reduces cost for patients with emergent chest pain: a randomized trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;56(3):209–219 e2.

    Google Scholar 

  19. • Miller CD, Hwang W, Case D, et al. Stress CMR imaging observation unit in the emergency department reduces 1-year medical care costs in patients with acute chest pain A randomized study for comparison with inpatient care. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4(8):862–70. A prospective randomized trial in patients presenting to the emergency room with acute chest pain comparing a strategy of observation unit monitoring, cardiac markers, and stress CMR to a strategy of hospitalization. The authors found that a strategy of observation followed by stress CMR was associated with reduced cost ($3,101 vs $4,742; P = 0.012) as well as no difference in adverse outcomes (3% vs 6%, P=0.72) during the first 12 months after enrollment..

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(24):2503–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(15):1503–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. •• Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(3):213–24. A pivotal prospective randomized trial demonstrating that the results of physiological assessment (fractional flow reserve) are superior to anatomic findings for the identification of patients likely to benefit from revascularization versus medical therapy..

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS. Comparison of the short-term survival benefit associated with revascularization compared with medical therapy in patients with no prior coronary artery disease undergoing stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography. Circulation. 2003;107(23):2900–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Shaw LJ, et al. Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(8):1012–24.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Otero HJ, Rybicki FJ, Greenberg D, Mitsouras D, Mendoza JA, Neumann PJ. Cost-effective diagnostic cardiovascular imaging: when does it provide good value for the money? Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;26(6):605–12.

    Google Scholar 

  26. van der Wall EE, Siebelink HM, Bax JJ, Schalij MJ. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; gatekeeper in suspected CAD? Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;27(1):123–6.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Desk J1-5, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Deborah H. Kwon & Rory Hachamovitch

Authors
  1. Deborah H. Kwon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rory Hachamovitch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rory Hachamovitch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kwon, D.H., Hachamovitch, R. Cost-Effectiveness of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep 5, 69–76 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12410-012-9127-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12410-012-9127-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation