ArticlePloS one2024
Early-stage health technology assessment of fractional flow reserve coronary computed tomography versus standard diagnostics in patients with stable chest pain in The Netherlands.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this early-stage Health Technology Assessment (HTA) was to assess the difference in healthcare costs and effects of fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography (FFRct) compared to standard diagnostics in patients with stable chest pain in The Netherlands.
methodsA decision-tree model was developed to assess the difference in total costs from the hospital perspective, probability of correct diagnoses, and risk of major adverse cardiovascular events at one year follow-up. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the main drivers of the cost difference between the strategies. A threshold analysis on the added price of FFRct analysis (computational analysis only) was conducted.
resultsThe mean one-year costs were €2,680 per patient for FFRct and €2,915 per patient for standard diagnostics. The one-year probability of correct diagnoses was 0.78 and 0.61, and the probability of major adverse cardiovascular events was 1.92x10-5 and 0.01, respectively. The probability and costs of revascularization and the specificity of coronary computed tomography angiography had the greatest effect on the difference in costs between the strategies. The added price of FFRct analysis should be below €935 per patient to be considered the least costly option.
conclusionsThe early-stage HTA findings suggest that FFRct may reduce total healthcare spending, probability of incorrect diagnoses, and major adverse cardiovascular events compared to current diagnostics for patients with stable chest pain in the Dutch healthcare setting over one year. Future cost-effectiveness studies should determine a value-based pricing for FFRct and quantify the economic value of the anticipated therapeutic impact.
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.