Trial reportHeart (British Cardiac Society)2021
Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular imaging for stable coronary heart disease.
Trial report in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- International Systematic Review of Utility Values Associated with Cardiovascular Disease and Reflections on Selecting Evidence for a UK Decision-Analytic Model.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Pooled it
- Society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance expert consensus statement on quantitative myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceGuideline
- Accelerated stress CMR for the detection of significant coronary artery disease: a prospective randomized diagnostic accuracy study.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2026Trial
- Pre-Imaging Clinical Factors Associated With Cardiac MR Image Quality Using Large Language Model-Enabled Data Extraction.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in contemporary guidelines: divergence between ESC and NICE across major cardiovascular diseases.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2026Review
- What role for cardiac imaging in chronic coronary syndromes: review of the literature in light of the latest recommendations.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Review
- Feasibility, Added Value, and Radiation Dose of Combined Coronary CT Angiography and Stress Dynamic CT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Moderate Coronary Artery Disease: A Real-World Study.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Measuring biventricular function and left atrial volume in a single five-dimensional whole-heart cardiovascular magnetic resonance scan at 0.55T.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025Article
- Review
- Vascular medicine in the 21World journal of clinical cases · 2024Review
- Regional variability of cardiovascular magnetic resonance access and utilization in the United States.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2024Observational
- Retinal thickness and fundus blood flow density changes in chest pain subjects with dyslipidemia.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- State-of-the-Art of Myocardial Perfusion by CMR: A Practical View.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- What Is the Role of Assessing Ischemia to Optimize Therapy and Outcomes for Patients with Stable Angina and Non-obstructed Coronary Arteries?Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2022Review
- Cost-effectiveness in diagnosis of stable angina patients: a decision-analytical modelling approach.Open heart · 2022Article
- Evidence-based cardiovascular magnetic resonance cost-effectiveness calculator for the detection of significant coronary artery disease.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2022Article
- Intracoronary Ultrasound Imaging Combined with Traditional Chinese Medicine Nursing Applied in the Treatment of Coronary Heart Disease Patients with Phlegm and Blood Stasis Syndrome.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Regional variation in cardiovascular magnetic resonance service delivery across the UK.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of management strategies for patients presenting with chest pain and suspected coronary heart disease (CHD): (1) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR); (2) myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS); and (3) UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline-guided care.
methodsUsing UK data for 1202 patients from the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease 2 trial, we conducted an economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of CMR, MPS and NICE guidelines. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs reflected UK pound sterling in 2016-2017. Cost-effectiveness results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net health benefits overall and for low, medium and high pretest likelihood of CHD subgroups.
resultsCMR had the highest estimated QALY gain overall (2.21 (95% credible interval 2.15, 2.26) compared with 2.07 (1.92, 2.20) for NICE and 2.11 (2.01, 2.22) for MPS) and incurred comparable costs (overall £1625 (£1431, £1824) compared with £1753 (£1473, £2032) for NICE and £1768 (£1572, £1989) for MPS). Overall, CMR was the cost-effective strategy, being the dominant strategy (more effective, less costly) with incremental net health benefits per patient of 0.146 QALYs (-0.18, 0.406) compared with NICE guidelines at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £15 000 per QALY (93% probability of cost-effectiveness). Results were similar in the pretest likelihood subgroups.
conclusionsCMR-guided care is cost-effective overall and across all pretest likelihood subgroups, compared with MPS and NICE guidelines.
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.