Trial reportThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2015
Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional invasive coronary angiography.
Trial report in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- A systematic review of modeling approaches to evaluate diagnostics programs for stable coronary heart disease: suggestions for future health economic models.Health economics review · 2026Review
- An artificial intelligence prediction model for optimizing patient selection for cardiac imaging for the investigation of suspected coronary artery disease.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of late gadolinium enhancement cardiac MRI for coronary artery disease in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2025Article
- Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography to Optimize the Diagnostic Yield of Invasive Angiography for Low-Risk Patients Screened With Artificial Intelligence: Protocol for the CarDIA-AI Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- The Cost Effectiveness of Coronary CT Angiography and the Effective Utilization of CT-Fractional Flow Reserve in the Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- Sustainability of paediatric radiology in Italy.Pediatric radiology · 2021Review
- Article
- A micro-costing evaluation of lobectomy by thoracotomy versus thoracoscopy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of new generation coronary CT scanners for difficult-to-image patients.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the costs and cost-effectiveness of a diagnostic strategy including computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in comparison with invasive conventional coronary angiography (CA) for the detection of significant coronary artery disease from the point of view of the healthcare provider.
methodsThe average cost per CTCA was determined via a micro-costing method in four French hospitals, and the cost of CA was taken from the 2011 French National Cost Study that collects data at the patient level from a sample of 51 public or not-for-profit hospitals.
resultsThe average cost of CTCA was estimated to be 180<euro> (95 % CI 162-206<euro>) based on the use of a 64-slice CT scanner active for 10 h per day. The average cost of CA was estimated to be 1,378<euro> (95 % CI 1,126-1,670<euro>). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CA for all patients over a strategy including CTCA triage in the intermediate risk group, no imaging test in the low risk group, and CA in the high risk group, was estimated to be 6,380<euro> (95 % CI 4,714-8,965<euro>) for each additional correctly classified patient. This strategy correctly classifies 95.3 % (95 % CI 94.4-96.2) of all patients in the population studied.
conclusionsA strategy of CTCA triage in the intermediate-risk group, no imaging test in the low-risk group, and CA in the high-risk group, has good diagnostic accuracy and could significantly cut costs. Medium-term and long-term outcomes need to be evaluated in patients with coronary stenosis potentially misclassified by CTCA due to false negative examinations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.