Cost-effectiveness of a management strategy based on exercise echocardiography versus exercise electrocardiography in patients presenting with suspected angina during long term follow up: A randomized study.

INTRODUCTION: Exercise ECG (Ex-ECG) is advocated by guidelines for patients with low - intermediate probability of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, there are no randomized studies comparing Ex-ECG with exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) evaluating long term cost-effectiveness of each management strategy.

METHODS: Accordingly, 385 patients with no prior CAD and low-intermediate probability of CAD (mean pre-test probability 34%), were randomized to undergo either Ex-ECG (194 patients) or ESE (191 patients). The primary endpoint was clinical effectiveness defined as the positive predictive value (PPV) for the detection of CAD of each test. Cost-effectiveness was derived using the cumulative costs incurred by each diagnostic strategy during a mean of follow up of 3.0 years.

RESULTS: The PPV of ESE and Ex-ECG were 100% and 64% (p = 0.04) respectively for the detection of CAD. There were fewer clinic (31 vs 59, p < 0.01) and emergency visits (14 vs 30, p = 0.01) and lower number of hospital bed days (8 vs 29, p < 0.01) in the ESE arm, with fewer patients undergoing coronary angiography (13.4% vs 6.3%, p = 0.02). The overall cumulative mean costs per patient were £796 for Ex-ECG and £631 for ESE respectively (p = 0.04) equating to a >20% reduction in cost with an ESE strategy with no difference in the combined end-point of death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization and hospitalization for chest pain between ESE and Ex-ECG (3.2% vs 3.7%, p = 0.38).

CONCLUSION: In patients with low to intermediate pretest probability of CAD and suspected angina, an ESE management strategy is cost-effective when compared with Ex-ECG during long term follow up.