Digital variance angiography in patients undergoing lower limb arterial recanalization: cost–effectiveness analysis within the English healthcare setting
Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Abstract
Aim: Digital variance angiography (DVA) is a recently developed image processing method capable of improving image quality compared with the traditionally used digital subtraction angiography (DSA), among patients undergoing lower limb x-ray angiography. This study aims to explore the potential cost–effectiveness of DVA from an English National Health Service perspective. Materials & methods: A two-part economic model, consisting of a decision tree and a Markov model, was developed to consider the costs and health outcomes associated with the use of DVA as part of current practice imaging, compared with x-ray angiography using standard DSA. The model explored the impact of DVA on the development of acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease and radiation-induced cancer over a lifetime horizon. Both deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to assess the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: Base-case results indicate that DVA results in cost savings of £309 per patient, with QALYs also improving (+0.025) over a lifetime. As shown in sensitivity analysis, a key driver of model results is the relative risk (RR) reduction of contrast-associated acute kidney injury associated with use of DVA. The intervention also decreases the risk of carcinoma over a lifetime. Scenario analyses show that cost savings range from £310 to £553, with QALY gains ranging from 0.048 to 0.109 per patient. Conclusion: The use of DVA could result in a decrease in costs and an increase in QALYs over a lifetime, compared with existing imaging practice. The potential for this technology to offer an economically viable alternative to existing image processing methods, through a reduction in contrast media volume and radiation exposure, has been demonstrated.
Supplementary Material
File (supplementary material.docx)
- Download
- 21.30 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest
1.
Gyánó M, Berczeli M, Csobay-Novák C et al. Digital variance angiography allows about 70% decrease of DSA-related radiation exposure in lower limb X-ray angiography. Sci. Rep. 11, 21790 (2021).
• Proved that digital variance angiography (DVA) allows for approximately 70% reduction in radiation exposure associated with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in x-rays for lower limb angiography.
2.
Sótonyi P, Berczeli M, Gyánó M et al. Radiation exposure reduction by digital variance angiography in lower limb angiography: a randomized controlled trial. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 10, 198 (2023).
3.
Okamoto K, Ito J, Sakai K, Yoshimura S. The principle of digital subtraction angiography and radiological protection. Interv. Neuroradiol. 6(Suppl. 1), 25–31 (2000).
4.
Rogers K. Angiography | Medicine. Encyclopedia Britannica (2022). (Accessed 23 June 2022). https://www.britannica.com/science/angiography#ref293758
5.
Jeans WD. The development and use of digital subtraction angiography. Br. J. Radiol. 63(747), 161–168 (1990).
6.
Jalali A, Srinivasan VM, Chinnadurai P, Kan P, Arthur A, Duckworth EA. Two-color 3D-3D fusion of selective rotational cerebral angiograms: a novel approach to imaging in cerebrovascular neurosurgery. J. Neurointerv. Surg. 8(10), 1056–1060 (2016).
7.
Kato N, Yuki I, Hataoka S et al. 4D digital subtraction angiography for the temporal flow visualization of intracranial aneurysms and vascular malformations. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 29(12), 105327 (2020).
8.
Szigeti K, Máthé D, Osváth S. Motion based x-ray imaging modality. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 33(10), 2031–2038 (2014).
9.
Thomas RP, Bastian MB, Viniol S et al. Digital variance angiography in selective lower limb interventions. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 33(2), 104–112 (2022).
10.
Gyánó M, Góg I, Óriás VI et al. Kinetic imaging in lower extremity arteriography: comparison to digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 290(1), 246–253 (2019).
• Suggests that the kinetic imaging in x-ray angiography could reduce radiation exposure and improve the ability to view smaller vessels.
11.
Óriás VI, Gyánó M, Góg I et al. Digital variance angiography as a paradigm shift in carbon dioxide angiography. Invest. Radiol. 54(7), 428–436 (2019).
12.
Bastian MB, König AM, Viniol S et al. Digital variance angiography in lower-limb angiography with metal implants Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 44, 452–459 (2021).
13.
Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J et al., ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies. Value Health 6(1), 9–17 (2003).
14.
NICE. NICE Health Technology Evaluations: The Manual (2023). https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/resources/nice-health-technology-evaluations-the-manual-pdf-72286779244741
15.
Mandurino-Mirizzi A, Munafò A, Crimi G. Contrast-associated acute kidney injury. J. Clin. Med. 11(8), 2167 (2022).
16.
Ons.gov.uk. National life tables: England - Office for National Statistics. (2022). (Accessed 23 June 2022). https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/nationallifetablesenglandreferencetables/current
17.
Yuan N, Latif K, Botting PG et al. Refining safe contrast limits for preventing acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 10(1), e018890 (2021).
• Provides a risk model to tailor safe contract volume limits during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using data from 20,579 PCIs.
18.
Dangas G, Iakovou I, Nikolsky E et al. Contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary interventions in relation to chronic kidney disease and hemodynamic variables. Am. J. Cardiol. 95(1), 13–19 (2005).
19.
Mehran R, Aymong ED, Nikolsky E et al. A simple risk score for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention: development and initial validation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 44(7), 1393–1399 (2004).
20.
Mueller C, Buerkle G, Buettner HJ et al. Prevention of contrast media-associated nephropathy: randomized comparison of 2 hydration regimens in 1620 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. Arch. Intern. Med. 162(3), 329–336 (2002).
21.
Óriás VI, Szöllősi D, Gyánó M et al. Initial evidence of a 50% reduction of contrast media using digital variance angiography in endovascular carotid interventions. Eur. J. Radiol. Open 7, 100288 (2020).
• Shows that DVA allows a substantial (50%) iodinated contrast media reduction in carotid x-ray angiography without affecting the quality and diagnostic value of angiograms.
22.
Juszkat R, Blaszak MA, Majewska N, Majewski W. Dose-area product of patients undergoing digital subtraction angiography (DSA), abdominal aorta and lower limb examinations. Health Phys. 96(1), 13–18 (2009).
23.
Feldman DA, Shroff AR, Bao H, Curtis JP, Minges KE, Ardati AK. Stent selection among patients with chronic kidney disease: results from the NCDR CathPCI Registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 96(6), 1213–1221 (2020).
24.
James MT, Hemmelgarn BR, Wiebe N et al. Glomerular filtration rate, proteinuria, and the incidence and consequences of acute kidney injury: a cohort study. Lancet 376(9758), 2096–2103 (2010).
25.
Eriksen BO, Ingebretsen OC. The progression of chronic kidney disease: a 10-year population-based study of the effects of gender and age. Kidney Int. 69(2), 375–382 (2006).
26.
NICE. Clinical Guideline 169. Acute kidney injury: prevention, detection and management [CG169]. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Royston, UK (2013).
• This clinical guideline in acute kidney injury published by NICE describes patients pathway in the NHS England.
27.
Coca SG, Singanamala S, Parikh CR. Chronic kidney disease after acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Kidney Int. 81(5), 442–448 (2012).
28.
Valle JA, McCoy LA, Maddox TM et al. Longitudinal risk of adverse events in patients with acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 10(4), e004439 (2017).
29.
Smolina K, Wright FL, Rayner M, Goldacre MJ. Long-term survival and recurrence after acute myocardial infarction in England, 2004 to 2010. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 5(4), 532–540 (2012).
30.
NICE. Medical Technologies Guidance 60. DyeVert Systems for reducing the risk of acute kidney injury in coronary and peripheral angiography [MTG60]. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, UK (2021).
31.
Villar E, Remontet L, Labeeuw M, Ecochard R. Effect of age, gender, and diabetes on excess death in end-stage renal failure. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 18(7), 2125 (2007).
32.
NICE. Technology Appraisal Guidance 236. Ticagrelor for the treatment of acute coronary syndromes [TA236]. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, UK (2011).
33.
Jesky MD, Dutton M, Dasgupta I et al. Health-related quality of life impacts mortality but not progression to end-stage renal disease in pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease: a prospective observational study. PLOS ONE 11(11), e0165675 (2016).
34.
Lee AJ, Morgan CL, Conway P, Currie CJ. Characterisation and comparison of health-related quality of life for patients with renal failure. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 21(11), 1777–1783 (2005).
35.
Cooper JT, Lloyd A, Sanchez JJG, Sörstadius E, Briggs A, McFarlane P. Health related quality of life utility weights for economic evaluation through different stages of chronic kidney disease: a systematic literature review. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 18(1), 310 (2020).
36.
Sullivan PW, Slejko JF, Sculpher MJ, Ghushchyan V. Catalogue of EQ-5D scores for the United Kingdom. Med. Decis. Making 31(6), 800–804 (2011).
37.
NICE Technology Assessment Report. Diagnostics Assessment Report – EOS 2D/3D X-ray Imaging System, Final Report (16th March 2011).
38.
Department of Health. NHS Reference Costs 2019/20. Collection Guidance. Department of Health, UK (2020).
39.
Walker S, Asaria M, Manca A et al. Long-term healthcare use and costs in patients with stable coronary artery disease: a population-based cohort using linked health records (CALIBER). Eur. Heart J. Qual. Care Clin. Outcomes 2(2), 125–140 (2016).
40.
Subramanian S, Tumlin J, Bapat B, Zyczynski T. Economic burden of contrast-induced nephropathy: implications for prevention strategies. J. Med. Econ. 10(2), 119–134 (2007).
41.
Kerr M, Bedford M, Matthews B, O'Donoghue D. The economic impact of acute kidney injury in England. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 29(7), 1362–1368 (2014).
42.
Tripathi B, Sharma P, Arora S et al. Safety and feasibility of robotic assisted percutaneous coronary intervention compared to standard percutaneous coronary intervention – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian Heart J. 73(5), 549–554 (2021).
43.
King's Health Partners and Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust. Feasibility Study (2018). (Accessed 23 June 2022). https://www.rbht.nhs.uk/sites/nhs/files/Governors/Other%20papers/King%E2%80%99s%20Health%20Partners%20and%20Royal%20Brompton%20%26%20Harefield%20NHS%20Foundation%20Trust%20Feasibility%20Study%20APPENDIX%20FINAL%20DRAFT%20VERSION%2020%20April%202018.pdf
44.
Work-day.co.uk. Business days calculator in the UK and Ireland. (2022). (Accessed 23 June 2022). https://www.work-day.co.uk/
45.
Fletcher D, Edwards D, Tolchard S et al. Improving theatre turnaround time. BMJ Open Quality 6(1), u219831.w8131 (2017).
46.
Westwood M, Al M, Burgers L et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of new-generation computed tomography scanners for imaging in coronary artery disease and congenital heart disease: Somatom Definition Flash, Aquilion ONE, Brilliance iCT and Discovery CT750 HD. Health Technol. Assess. 17(9), 1–243 (2013).
47.
McKenna C, Wade R, Faria R et al. EOS 2D/3D X-ray imaging system: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 16(14), 1–188 (2012).
48.
National Research Council (US) Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR V). Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Beir V. National Academies Press, WA, USA (1990).
49.
Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary 83. BMJ Publishing and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, UK (2020).
50.
NICE. Clinical Guideline 169. Acute Kidney Injury: Prevention, Detection and Management (CG169). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, UK (2013).
51.
Gurm HS, Seth M, Mehran R et al. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2). Impact of contrast dose reduction on incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) among patients undergoing PCI: a modeling study. J. Invasive Cardiol. 28(4), 142–146 (2016).
52.
Hay JW, Lawler E, Yucel K et al. Cost impact of diagnostic imaging for lower extremity peripheral vascular occlusive disease. Value Health 12(2), 262–266 (2009).
53.
NHS Digital. National Health Service Data Set (2023). https://www.nhsdigital.nhs.uk/data
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2024 The authors. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
History
Received: 5 May 2023
Accepted: 14 February 2024
Published online: 22 March 2024
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Digital variance angiography in patients undergoing lower limb arterial recanalization: cost–effectiveness analysis within the English healthcare setting. (2024) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.57264/cer-2023-0068
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Balázs Bence Nyárády, Renáta Gubán, Ákos Pataki, András Bibok, Zsuzsanna Mihály, Dávid Korda, Dénes Horváthy, Anikó Ilona Nagy, János Pál Kiss, Edit Dósa, Comparison of the performance of digital variance angiography and digital subtraction angiography in children with arteriovenous malformations: a retrospective observational study, European Radiology Experimental, 10.1186/s41747-025-00614-w, 9, 1, (2025).