Evidence-based cardiovascular magnetic resonance cost-effectiveness calculator for the detection of significant coronary artery disease

Ankur Pandya*, Yuan Jui Yu, Yin Ge, Eike Nagel, Raymond Y. Kwong, Rafidah Abu Bakar, John D. Grizzard, Alexander E. Merkler, Ntobeko Ntusi, Steffen E. Petersen, Nina Rashedi, Juerg Schwitter, Joseph B. Selvanayagam, James A. White, James Carr, Subha V. Raman, Orlando P. Simonetti, Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci, Lilia M. Sierra-Galan, Victor A. FerrariMona Bhatia, Sebastian Kelle

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Scopus citations


Background: Although prior reports have evaluated the clinical and cost impacts of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for low-to-intermediate-risk patients with suspected significant coronary artery disease (CAD), the cost-effectiveness of CMR compared to relevant comparators remains poorly understood. We aimed to summarize the cost-effectiveness literature on CMR for CAD and create a cost-effectiveness calculator, useable worldwide, to approximate the cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) of CMR and relevant comparators with context-specific patient-level and system-level inputs. Methods: We searched the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and PubMed for cost-per-QALY or cost-per-life-year-saved studies of CMR to detect significant CAD. We also developed a linear regression meta-model (CMR Cost-Effectiveness Calculator) based on a larger CMR cost-effectiveness simulation model that can approximate CMR lifetime discount cost, QALY, and cost effectiveness compared to relevant comparators [such as single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)] or invasive coronary angiography. Results: CMR was cost-effective for evaluation of significant CAD (either health-improving and cost saving or having a cost-per-QALY or cost-per-life-year result lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold) versus its relevant comparator in 10 out of 15 studies, with 3 studies reporting uncertain cost effectiveness, and 2 studies showing CCTA was optimal. Our cost-effectiveness calculator showed that CCTA was not cost-effective in the US compared to CMR when the most recent publications on imaging performance were included in the model. Conclusions: Based on current world-wide evidence in the literature, CMR usually represents a cost-effective option compared to relevant comparators to assess for significant CAD.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number1
JournalJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
Issue number1
StatePublished - Dec 2022


  • Cardiovascular magnetic resonance
  • Coronary artery disease
  • Cost-effectiveness

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Family Practice


Dive into the research topics of 'Evidence-based cardiovascular magnetic resonance cost-effectiveness calculator for the detection of significant coronary artery disease'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this