Economic Outcome of Cardiac CT-Based Evaluation and Standard of Care for Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Emergency Department

Rationale and Objectives Cardiac computed tomography (CCT) in the emergency department may be cost saving for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but economic outcome data are limited. The objective of this study was to compare the cost of CCT-based evaluation versus standard of care (SOC) using the results of a clinical trial. Materials and Methods We developed a decision analytic cost-minimization model to compare CCT-based and SOC evaluation costs to obtain a correct diagnosis. Model inputs, including Medicare-adjusted patient costs, were primarily obtained from a cohort study of 102 patients at low to intermediate risk for ACS who underwent an emergency department SOC clinical evaluation and a 64-channel CCT. SOC costs included stress testing in 77% of patients. Data from published literature completed the model inputs and expanded data ranges for sensitivity analyses. Results Modeled mean patient costs for CCT-based evaluation were $750 (24%) lower than the SOC ($2384 and $3134, respectively). Sensitivity analyses indicated that CCT was less expensive over a wide range of estimates and was only more expensive with a CCT specificity below 67% or if more than 44% of very low risk patients had CCT. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that CCT-based evaluation had a 98.9% probability of being less expensive compared to SOC. Conclusion Using a decision analytic model, CCT-based evaluation resulted in overall lower cost than the SOC for possible ACS patients over a wide range of cost and outcome assumptions, including computed tomography–related complications and downstream costs. Cardiac computed tomography (CCT) in the emergency department may be cost saving for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but economic outcome data are limited. The objective of this study was to compare the cost of CCT-based evaluation versus standard of care (SOC) using the results of a clinical trial. We developed a decision analytic cost-minimization model to compare CCT-based and SOC evaluation costs to obtain a correct diagnosis. Model inputs, including Medicare-adjusted patient costs, were primarily obtained from a cohort study of 102 patients at low to intermediate risk for ACS who underwent an emergency department SOC clinical evaluation and a 64-channel CCT. SOC costs included stress testing in 77% of patients. Data from published literature completed the model inputs and expanded data ranges for sensitivity analyses. Modeled mean patient costs for CCT-based evaluation were $750 (24%) lower than the SOC ($2384 and $3134, respectively). Sensitivity analyses indicated that CCT was less expensive over a wide range of estimates and was only more expensive with a CCT specificity below 67% or if more than 44% of very low risk patients had CCT. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that CCT-based evaluation had a 98.9% probability of being less expensive compared to SOC. Using a decision analytic model, CCT-based evaluation resulted in overall lower cost than the SOC for possible ACS patients over a wide range of cost and outcome assumptions, including computed tomography–related complications and downstream costs.