(Stroke. 1997;28:1330-1339.)
© 1997 American Heart Association, Inc.
Articles |
Assessment of the Efficacy of Noninvasive Screening for Patients With Asymptomatic Neck Bruits
From the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology (N.A.O.) and Division of Radiology (N.A.O., M.T.M., M.M., T.J.M.), The Cleveland Clinic Foundation (Ohio).
Correspondence to Nancy A. Obuchowski, PhD, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology and Division of Radiology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44195. E-mail nobuchow{at}bio.ri.ccf.org
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background and Purpose Several recent clinical trials have shown that endarterectomy is efficacious in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of various test strategies for screening and diagnosing carotid artery disease.
Methods We constructed a model of the natural history of carotid artery disease using literature-based estimates of the prevalence and incidence of carotid artery stenosis and associated morbidity and mortality. Markov cohort simulation was used to estimate the mean quality-adjusted life years and monetary costs associated with various management strategies.
Results Screening is cost-effective in the baseline model. Key parameters affecting the efficacy of screening are prevalence of operable lesions, benefit of surgery, surgical complication rates, quality of life with stroke, rate of stenosis progression, and excess morbidity and mortality.
Conclusions Asymptomatic patients with carotid
bruits may benefit from screening if the prevalence rate is 
20%, the
benefits and risks associated with surgery are similar to those
observed in the Asymptomatic Carotid
Atherosclerosis Study, and the quality of life with
stroke is considerably lower than the quality of life without stroke.
Ultrasound followed by three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography,
if indicated, is a promising test strategy.
Key Words: carotid stenosis • decision modeling • diagnostic imaging • stroke prevention
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of screening for carotid artery disease, particularly among asymptomatic patients with carotid bruits. The question of screening arises in light of the results of three recent multicenter randomized clinical trials of asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis.1 2 3 The first and smallest of the three studies (n=410) found no benefit to surgery in patients with 50% to 90% stenosis.1 However, patients with stenosis >90% at baseline were excluded in this trial, and nearly half of the patients in the medical arm underwent carotid endarterectomy during the course of the study. The two most recent studies (n=444 and n=1662) observed a respective 61% and 53% relative risk reduction in ipsilateral events attributable to surgery.2 3
The question of screening asymptomatic patients has been addressed previously. In 1988, Feussner and Matchar4 used decision analysis to assess the value of noninvasive screening for patients with asymptomatic neck bruits. Their study, however, was published before the completion of the clinical trials for asymptomatic patients1 2 3 and several similar trials for symptomatic patients.5 6 7 Thus, they were not able to use the most recent data on the risks and benefit of surgery.
Recently, Derdeyn and Powers8 built a decision model using data from recent clinical trials to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening with US, followed by catheter angiography if indicated. Similarly, we built a decision model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of both US and 3D TOF MRA as screening tools for asymptomatic patients. We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of 3D TOF MRA as a presurgical test in lieu of CA.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
We compared the costs and benefits of two management plans for asymptomatic patients with neck bruits: (1) noninvasive screening of the carotid arteries and (2) a wait-and-see approach, whereby only patients who become symptomatic are tested. The major advantage of screening over the wait-and-see approach is a reduction in the risk of unheralded strokes. The disadvantages of screening are its expense and the complications associated with early surgery.
For each of these two management plans, we compared the costs and
benefits of four diagnostic/therapeutic test strategies. In
the first test strategy, patients undergo duplex US, followed by CA if
US detects 60% stenosis. In the second test strategy,
patients undergo 3D TOF MRA followed by CA if MRA detects 60%
stenosis. In these first two strategies, if CA identifies 60%
to 99% stenosis with no clinically relevant tandem lesions,
then the patient proceeds to surgery. In the third strategy, patients
undergo 3D TOF MRA only. Finally, in the fourth strategy, patients
undergo US, followed by 3D TOF MRA if the US detects 60%
stenosis. In these last two strategies, if 3D TOF MRA detects
60% to 99% stenosis and does not detect any contraindications
to surgery, then the patient proceeds to surgery.
Fig 1
illustrates the decision model. The square
decision node at the left indicates that a decision must be made as to
screen or not screen. In the bottom branch, there is no testing unless
a patient suffers a reversible cerebral event. In the top branch,
patients undergo noninvasive screening. If the test result is
"negative," screening ends. If the test result is
"positive," then in test strategies 1 and 2 CA is performed. In
strategy 3, the patients proceed directly to surgery. In strategy 4, 3D
TOF MRA is performed.
|
We used Markov simulation9 to model the iterative risks of
TIAs, strokes, and death over time. In this model a hypothetical cohort
of asymptomatic patients moves from one state of health to
another over time. Each cycle of the Markov model was 1 month in
duration. There were three Markov states: well, (permanently) disabled,
and dead. In addition, we allowed cycles of temporary disability after
transient cerebral events (ie, TIAs or reversible strokes). Fig 2 illustrates the allowed transitions between these
states.
|
For each management plan (ie, screen and wait-and-see) and for each of the four diagnostic test strategies, we simulated an identical cohort of 20 000 patients. At the start of the simulation, all patients were asymptomatic. A program was written in Fortran to generate and track the patient cohorts over time until all patients reached death.
Assignment of Utilities
Our outcome measure was QALYs. QALYs describe the quality and
quantity of life. Each Markov state was assigned a quality of life
value (ie, utility). A utility value of 0 was given to the state of
death, whereas a utility of 1 was given the state of well-being.
Instead of assigning a single utility value to the disability states,
we assigned a distribution of values to better reflect the diversity of
stroke outcomes. Specifically, for each occurrence of a transient
cerebral event or irreversible stroke, a random variable from a ß
distribution was generated. For irreversible strokes, the
parameters of a ß distribution were chosen such that the
mean utility was 0.2, and 70% of the utilities were between 0.1 and
0.4. For transient cerebral events, the mean utility was 0.8, and 58%
of the utilities were between 0.7 and 0.9. These mean utilities of 0.2
and 0.8 have been used previously to model "small strokes" and
"large strokes," respectively.10
To determine the duration of a transient cerebral event, we generated values from a log-normal distribution. The median duration of a transient event was 1 day, and 95% of durations were <2 weeks. Thus, 50% of reversible events fell under the definition of a TIA. This is consistent with most clinical definitions of TIAs and RINDs. A utility of 1 was assigned to cycles after a reversible event, unless another event occurred.
Baseline Estimates of Model Parameters
Table 1 summarizes the baseline estimates of
various parameters in the model. We define an operable
lesion as one with 60% to 99% stenosis, as in the
ACAS.3 In Table 2 the annual risks of
ipsilateral irreversible stroke and reversible events are summarized as
functions of the amount of stenosis present and whether or
not the patient has had previous symptoms. Whenever possible, we used
estimates of risk based on the medical arm of recent clinical trials.
When data were not available from clinical trials, we used other
sources from the literature. (To estimate the risk of stroke for this
analysis, it was necessary to use data from a variety of
sources. Because of differences in patient mix and small sample sizes
in some studies, our estimates of risk may be imprecise. In our
sensitivity analysis, we tried to address this. Specifically,
since the risk of unheralded, irreversible stroke is critical to the
efficacy of screening, we assessed the effect of both lowering and
raising the baseline estimates of this risk.) For patients who have
just experienced a reversible cerebral event, we assume that the risk
of an irreversible stroke in the following month is
4.4%.21 If a stroke does not occur in the following
month, then the annual risk of an irreversible stroke is
13%6 and the annual risk of a reversible event is
14.5%.7 For patients who have just experienced an
irreversible stroke, we assume that the risk of cerebrovascular death
in the following month is 17%.22 If death does not occur,
then the annual risk of another irreversible stroke is
14%.23
|
|
In ACAS,3 the ipsilateral stroke relative risk reduction attributable to surgery was estimated at 53% (absolute risk reduction of 5.9% over 5 years). This estimate includes surgery and angiography complications. For our assessment of QALYs, we must account for the timing of events; thus, we must keep separate accounts of the perioperative events and the events following an uncomplicated surgery. We estimate that for patients with uncomplicated surgeries, the relative risk reduction attributable to surgery is 73% for asymptomatic patients3 and 80% for symptomatic patients.6
The long-term benefit of surgery was not assessed in either the ACAS3 or NASCET.6 (In the ACAS, patients were followed for a median of 2.7 years; in the NASCET, the duration of follow-up averaged 1.5 years.) Bernstein et al,24 however, followed a consecutive series of 507 postoperative patients for up to 10 years. They found that the rate of restenosis decreases after the first postoperative year and that the risk of cerebrovascular events is inversely related to the amount of restenosis. These findings are supported by others.25 26 Thus, for our analysis, we assume that the relative risk reductions estimated in the ACAS and NASCET persist over the patient's life.
Schedule of Screening Asymptomatic Patients
We first considered the scenario in which
asymptomatic patients are screened only once. Under this
first scenario, if the test result does not indicate that the patient
has 60% to 99% stenosis, then the patient is not tested again
unless he becomes symptomatic. We also considered the
scenario in which asymptomatic patients whose test results
show 30% to 59% stenosis return for annual screening up until
the time the patient undergoes surgery or becomes
symptomatic. For test strategies 1 and 4, US would be used
for follow-up screening; for test strategies 2 and 3, MRA would be
used.
Schedule of Testing Patients Once Symptomatic
Under both the wait-and-see and screening approaches to patient
management, a subpopulation of the original cohort of
asymptomatic patients will eventually become
symptomatic. After each cerebrovascular event, the patient
undergoes a workup under one of the four diagnostic test
strategies. If a symptomatic patient is found to have
<60% stenosis at workup, then we assume that the patient
returns at regular intervals for follow-up testing. For
symptomatic patients found to have 30% to 59%
stenosis, follow-up testing is performed at 6 months and then
annually unless another event occurs. For symptomatic
patients found to have 1% to 29% stenosis, follow-up testing
occurs annually. For test strategies 1 and 4, US would be used for
follow-up testing; for test strategies 2 and 3, MRA would be used.
Assumptions
(1) Conventional angiography is 100% sensitive and specific for
detecting an operable lesion and for detecting tandem lesions and
aneurysms.
(2) A patient undergoes surgery only once.
(3) The combined frequency of tandem lesions and/or cerebral aneurysms is 5%.6 The accuracy of 3D MRA for detecting these lesions is as follows: sensitivity, 80%; specificity, 95%.27 28 For the baseline analysis, when surgery is performed on a patient with a tandem lesion or cerebral aneurysm, we assume that the perioperative risks are double those of a patient without a tandem lesion and that the patient obtains no benefit from surgery.29 30 31 32
(4) The frequency of patients with claustrophobia or metal devices that contraindicate MRA is 5%. When MRA is contraindicated, US is used for screening, followed by CA (ie, test strategy 1 is the default).
(5) The short-term morbidity associated with surgery is equivalent to a 1-week reduction in quality-adjusted survival.33
(6) Patients without a 60% to 99% stenosis who undergo surgery obtain no benefit from surgery.
(7) A 5% annual discount rate on utilities describes patients' risk aversion.
(8) Twenty percent of patients with TIAs require hospital admission.
Cost Analysis
At our institution, we use Transition I (Transition Systems,
Inc), a cost accounting software package modified for our use. This
software allows us to approach an activity-based method of cost
accounting. The software's methodology uses a cost allocation model
with two basic levels of cost accounting: the intermediate product
level and the end-product or patient case level. Transition I
integrates and applies both cost accounting methods through different
subsystems. The strength of the system is that a manager can look both
bottom up and top down in analyzing costs.
We used this cost accounting method to compute the mean direct professional and technical costs of diagnostic imaging and surgery (not billable charges) at our institution for 1995. The total direct cost of a duplex scan of the extracranial arteries was $181. The cost of MRA (head and neck) was $417. The cost of arch and carotid angiography was $1959. The cost of thromboendarterectomy of the carotid artery was $6991. In addition, at many institutions including ours, symptomatic patients receive CT of the brain, which costs $205.
The cost of a TIA and stroke was obtained by reviewing total cost data on patients hospitalized at our institution between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 1995. These were internal medicine or neurology admissions with diagnosis-related groups of 14 or 15. From these data, the mean cost of a TIA that required hospital admission, excluding diagnostic imaging and endarterectomy, was $16 800. The mean cost of a stroke, excluding diagnostic imaging and carotid endarterectomy, was $17 500.
We weighted the costs that were incurred over time by a 5% annual discount rate to reduce all costs to present value.34
Sensitivity Analysis
Because of the uncertainties in the data points used in this
analysis, we performed a sensitivity analysis to study
the robustness of our conclusions. We focused on the
parameters most likely to affect our conclusions.
Specifically, we evaluated the following scenarios:
(1) Surgery is less beneficial. We examined the case in which surgery is less beneficial than that assumed in the baseline analysis. First, we examined the effect on our results if surgery is associated with a relative risk reduction, excluding surgical complications, as low as 30%. Note that a relative risk reduction, excluding surgical complications, of 50% is approximately equivalent to the lower end of the confidence interval for relative risk reduction, including surgical complications, in the ACAS.3 Second, we considered the scenario in which the benefits of surgery did not last the patient's lifetime but rather persisted for shorter durations of 5 to 25 years.
(2) Higher surgical risks. We considered the effect of a 50% and a 100% increase in the surgical risks over those experienced in recent clinical trials. Thus, for prophylactic surgery, the mortality rate was assessed at 0.5% and 0.6% and the irreversible stroke rate at 2.6% and 3.4%, respectively. For symptomatic surgery, the mortality rate was assessed at 0.9% and 1.2% and the irreversible stroke rate at 7.8% and 10.4%, respectively.
(3) Frequency of unheralded, irreversible stroke is
lower/higher. We considered the case in which the frequency of
unheralded, irreversible strokes is 50% lower and 50% higher than the
baseline estimates in Table 2
.
(4) 3D TOF MRA is less accurate at detecting operable lesions. Since our estimates of the accuracy of 3D TOF MRA were based on only a few available studies26 (unlike the estimates of the accuracy of US, which were based on a meta-analysis25 of 70 studies), we thought it was important to consider a scenario in which the sensitivity and specificity of MRA are as much as 10% lower than that used in the baseline analysis. We also considered the scenario in which the baseline estimates of accuracy are biased as a result of verification bias. For this assessment, we reduced the sensitivity of 3D TOF MRA by 10% and increased the specificity by up to 10%.
(5) Monetary costs are higher. We first considered a twofold increase in the cost of the diagnostic tests (ie, US, 3D TOF MRA, and CA). Second, we considered a twofold increase in the cost of carotid endarterectomy. Finally, we considered the effect on our results if all costs were increased twofold and if we factored in the chronic cost of stroke care. For the latter analysis we assumed that the cost of stroke was $10 000 annually.
(6) Stroke-free quality of life value is lower/Quality of life with stroke is higher. In patients with a high prevalence of asymptomatic disease, and even in normal people older than 50 years, the utility value associated with a stroke-free status may be less than 1.0.35 Thus, we considered the effect on our results if the utility associated with stroke-free survival was 0.90 instead of 1.0. We also considered the effect on our results if the utility value associated with stroke was greater than our baseline value of 0.2, as suggested in a study by Gage et al.36 For this analysis we set the mean utility for irreversible stroke equal to 0.4, similar to the estimate of Gage et al of 0.39 for "moderate to severe stroke."
(7) Stenosis progression rate is lower. In the baseline analysis, we assumed that 23.5% of patients would progress one stenosis category annually. In the first year, this translates into approximately 9% of patients who had <60% stenosis at baseline progressing to >60% stenosis in the following year. In our sensitivity analysis, we reduced this rate from 23.5% to as low as 1%.
(8) Risk of "other" stroke and nonstroke mortality is higher. Patients with multiple risk factors for carotid artery disease are likely to have elevated "other" stroke (ie, contralateral or posterior circulation) and nonstroke mortality rates and to experience greater surgical risks. Thus, we considered the efficacy of screening patients with a high prevalence rate of carotid artery stenosis (ie, 30%) when the surgical risks and the risk of contralateral stroke and nonstroke mortality rates are as much as twice those in ACAS.
Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of Different
Strategies
Our strategy for comparing the two management plans was as
follows. We first compared the cost-effectiveness of the
diagnostic test strategies for the wait-and-see approach.
We identified the best test strategy by first looking for simple
dominance, whereby one test strategy is both more effective (in terms
of QALYs) and less costly (in terms of dollars) than the alternatives.
If the best test strategy could not be identified by simple dominance,
then we identified the least expensive strategy (referred to as
"A") and compared it with the next least expensive strategy that
was more effective (referred to as "B"). We computed the CER,
defined as the additional cost of using strategy B instead of A per
QALY gained by using B instead of A. If the marginal CER is
<$50 000/QALY, which is a standard criterion used in decision
analysis, then strategy B is preferred over A. Once we
identified the best test strategy for the wait-and-see approach, we
compared it with each of the various screening approaches. In this way,
we assessed whether or not screening is cost-effective compared with
the best wait-and-see approach.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Risk Profile
The risk profile of the simulated patient cohorts at 6 months, 1 year, and 5, 10, and 20 years is summarized in Fig 3
.
For this figure, the test strategy for the wait-and-see management plan
is US followed by 3D TOF MRA (strategy 4). For the screening management
plan, patients are screened with 3D TOF MRA (strategy 3); for the
subcohort of patients who become symptomatic, test strategy
4 is used. The prevalence rate is 10%.
|
Initially, all patients are well. However, by 1 year 6% of screened patients and 7% of wait-and-see patients have moved to permanent disability or dead states. By 10 years, 60% of screened and 62% of wait-and-see patients have moved to permanent disability or dead states.
Comparison of Test Strategies for Wait-and-See Approach:
Baseline Assessment
Table 3 summarizes the QALYs and costs associated
with the different test strategies for the wait-and-see management plan
using the baseline estimates of risk. The mean number of QALYs is
approximately 7 years. The mean cost per patient is between $10 000
and $13 000, depending on the prevalence of operable lesions and the
test strategy used. Note that when the test strategies are compared,
differences in mean QALYs of <0.08 year (
1 month) are not
statistically meaningful. Similarly, differences in mean cost of <$300
are not statistically meaningful. These minimally detectable
differences are a function of the inherent variability among patients
and the number of patients simulated.
|
Strategy 4 (US then 3D TOF MRA) is the preferred strategy for testing
symptomatic patients, regardless of the prevalence rate. If
the prevalence rate is 20%, it is the least expensive test strategy,
and the marginal CERs of the other strategies are >$50 000. If the
prevalence rate is 10% or 30%, strategy 4 is the second least
expensive strategy, and its marginal CERs compared with the least
expensive strategy are far below the $50 000 threshold (ie, $9250 and
$7070 for prevalence rates of 10% and 30%, respectively).
Furthermore, at many institutions including ours, it is much easier
logistically to get a US on a symptomatic patient in the
emergency department than it is to get an MRA study. When strategies 1
(US then CA) and 4 (US then 3D TOF MRA) are compared, as in Table 3,
strategy 4 is preferred to strategy 1.
Comparison of Management Plans for Asymptomatic
Patients: Baseline Assessment
Table 4 summarizes the mean QALYs and costs for
various management plans for asymptomatic patients. At each
prevalence rate we consider nine management strategies. The first
possibility is the wait-and-see approach in which no screening is
performed, but once a patient becomes symptomatic, then the
strategy of US followed by 3D TOF MRA (strategy 4) is used to test and
follow the patient, when applicable. In the second approach, patients
are screened one time with US then CA, if needed. Later, if patients
become symptomatic, strategy 4 is used to test and follow
the patient, if applicable. In the third approach, patients are
screened initially with US then CA, if needed. If the screening test
indicates 30% to 59% stenosis, screening occurs annually with
US unless the patient undergoes surgery or becomes
symptomatic. If the patient becomes
symptomatic, strategy 4 is used to test and follow the
patient, if applicable. The other six screening approaches are similar
but with different tests and test sequences.
|
If the prevalence rate is 10%, then only two screening strategies offer a significant gain over waiting: multiple screens with MRA followed by CA if needed (strategy 2) and multiple screens with MRA (strategy 3). With both of these screening plans, if the patient becomes symptomatic, then test strategy 4 is used. Since these two screening plans offer similar outcomes, strategy 3 is preferred since it is less expensive. The CER compared with no screening is $11 489. As a reference, the CER of a coronary artery bypass graft is $7300; the CER of treating mild hypertension is $32 600; and the CER of breast cancer screening in women aged 50 to 65 years is $20 000 to $50 000.37
If the prevalence rate is 20% or 30%, all of the screening
strategies offer a gain of 1 month over no screening (between 33 and
77 days, on average). However, none of the screening strategies is
significantly superior to the others in terms of gains in QALYs, and
therefore the least expensive strategy is preferred. The least
expensive strategies involve screening with US, then 3D TOF MRA if
needed (strategy 4). Annual screening with US does not significantly
increase the cost, and there may be a slight gain in QALYs,
particularly if the prevalence rate is high. The CERs for multiple
screens with strategy 4 are $4960 and $3128 for prevalence rates of
20% and 30%, respectively.
Fig 4 depicts the (irreversible) stroke-free
survival curves of the simulated cohorts in the wait-and-see (dashed
curve), single screen (solid curve), and multiple screen (dotted curve)
approaches. Here, the prevalence rate is set at 20%; strategy 4 is
used to screen asymptomatic patients and to diagnose
patients if they become symptomatic. The stroke-free
survival is slightly greater with multiple screens than a single
screen; both screening approaches offer greater stroke-free survival
than no screening.
|
Sensitivity Analysis
Table 5 summarizes the results of the sensitivity
analysis. The effectiveness of screening was sensitive to
changes in several key parameters: benefit of surgery,
surgical complication rates, quality of life with stroke, rate of
stenosis progression, and excess morbidity and mortality
rates.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The role of decision analysis in medical research is to provide insight into clinical problems. Decision analysis is not a substitute for a randomized controlled study but rather helps us to identify the key parameters in the decision. The results of this study suggest that the effectiveness of screening asymptomatic patients for carotid artery disease depends on the prevalence of disease, the benefit of surgery, the surgical complication rates, the quality of life with stroke, the rate of stenosis progression, and the excess morbidity and mortality rates.
If the relative risk reduction attributable to surgery is at the lower
end of the confidence interval for risk reduction reported in the
ACAS,3 then screening provides only marginal benefits at a
20% prevalence rate. At lower prevalence rates, screening is not
effective. When the prevalence rate is low, the duration of benefits is
particularly critical. Studies suggest that the benefits of surgery
persist for 10 to 15 years.24 25 26 However, if the
prevalence rate is <20%, the benefits may need to persist for 20
years for screening to be effective.
The clinical centers participating in ACAS and NASCET were selected for
their low surgical complication rates. Mayberg and Winn38
warn that the surgical complication rates attained in ACAS may not be
realized at other institutions. Our overall findings were not affected
by modest increases in the surgical complication rates attained in ACAS
and NASCET. However, when we doubled the rates (ie, stroke rates of
3.4% and 10.4% and mortality rates of 0.6% and 1.2% for
asymptomatic and symptomatic patients,
respectively), we found that screening is not effective if the
prevalence rate is 
10%.
The quality of life with stroke is another important
parameter in the effectiveness of screening. If patients
without stroke have a quality of life value of 0.9 and if stroke
reduces that to 0.2, then screening is effective, according to our
model. However, if stroke reduces the quality of life value only to
0.4, then screening may not provide any benefit over no screening
unless the prevalence rate is 30%.
In our baseline model we considered a rapid rate of stenosis
progression, equivalent to 9% of patients progressing from
insignificant to significant disease annually. We found that screening
is effective if this rate is 6%. However, if the rate is below 6%,
screening is effective only if the prevalence rate is 20%; if the
rate of progression is <1%, screening is effective only if the
prevalence of disease is 30%.
Several risk factors for an increased prevalence of carotid artery
stenosis, in addition to carotid bruits, have been noted in the
literature and include peripheral vascular
disease,39 40 smoking,40 41 42 43 44
hypertension,44 45 46 47 48 age,42 43 47 48
cholesterol/HDL,42 43 atrial
fibrillation,49 diabetes mellitus,43 44 heart
disease,40 44 and hyperhomocysteinemia.50
Furthermore, Barnett et al51 point out that NASCET
patients with more than six of the following risk factors are at
greater risk of stroke: male, aged >70 years, history of smoking,
hypertension, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure,
diabetes, intermittent claudication, or high blood lipid levels. This
might suggest that patients with multiple risk factors should be
targeted for screening. However, our results are particularly sensitive
to modest increases in the excess morbidity and mortality rates over
those observed in ACAS.3 Yet, the ACAS patients had
significant comorbidity: 64% were hypertensive, 25% were diabetic,
and 69% had heart disease; in addition, 66% of patients were male,
36% were aged 70 years, and 28% were current smokers. More work is
needed to understand the role of screening in patients with multiple
risk factors in whom increased prevalence of operable lesions is
counterbalanced by increased morbidity and mortality from other
causes.
In our study we compared the efficacy of several diagnostic test strategies. We found that for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, 3D TOF MRA is more cost-effective as a presurgical tool than CA because of its reported high accuracy15 and ability to detect tandem lesions.27 28 The estimates we used for the accuracy of 3D TOF MRA were based on a few select institutions. A 5% reduction in our baseline estimates of accuracy did not change our conclusions; however, if the accuracy of 3D TOF MRA is 10% worse than reported, then the advantage of 3D TOF MRA over CA is negated.
Several other studies have been performed to investigate the
effectiveness of screening for carotid artery disease. In a study by
Feussner and Matchar,4 screening provided no benefit
unless the prevalence of operable lesions was 35% and the risk of
stroke from an untreated lesion was >3% annually. Our model differs
from that of Feussner and Matchar in several key ways. First, the
surgical complication rates in recent clinical trials were much lower
than considered by Feussner and Matchar. Second, Feussner and Matchar
did not consider the potential role of 3D TOF MRA as a presurgical
tool. In our study, 3D TOF MRA was found to be more cost-effective than
invasive angiography, which was responsible for a 0.2% mortality and
1.0% stroke rate in ACAS.3 Finally, Feussner and Matchar
did not consider the dynamic nature of carotid
atherosclerosis. We modeled the natural history of
carotid stenosis progression and considered the efficacy of
follow-up screenings.
In 1995, Derdeyn et al52 reported the results of their analysis of the efficacy of US screening for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Their study concluded that screening asymptomatic patients with US is efficacious. However, unlike our analysis and that of Feussner and Matchar,4 in which QALYs were computed, Derdeyn at al used the number of strokes prevented as their outcome unit. Derdeyn et al did not consider the effect of competing (noncerebrovascular) risks, the timing of events (ie, strokes occurring at 5 years were given weight equivalent to strokes occurring at surgery), or the monetary cost of screening.
Derdeyn and Powers8 recently published the results of a new study of the efficacy of US screening. In their new study, they compute QALYs and consider competing risks, the timing of events, and the monetary costs associated with testing and treatment. Like our model, they built in stenosis progression and consider follow-up screens. They conclude that a single screen may be cost-effective (CER of $35 130) but that annual screening is not cost-effective and may be detrimental. Their model differs from ours in several ways. Perhaps the most important difference is the control, or no-screen, cohort. In our study we compared the QALYs and costs of screening with the QALYs and costs of a wait-and-see approach in which patients initially are asymptomatic, but over time a subcohort becomes symptomatic and then are tested and may undergo surgery. We assumed that the risks and benefits of surgery for symptomatic patients are similar to the findings in NASCET.6 In our study we first investigated the best test strategy for the wait-and-see approach so that our screening cohort could be compared with the best outcomes achievable in the wait-and-see approach. In contrast, the control cohort in the study of Derdeyn and Powers is ill-defined. They state only that the costs and QALYs associated with the screening cohort are compared with "a natural history simulation." It is unclear to us if this "natural history" control cohort is the relevant group for comparison with screening. Other differences between the model of Derdeyn and Powers and ours are as follows: (1) They did not consider 3D TOF MRA as a presurgical tool. Again, we found that 3D TOF MRA is more cost-effective than CA as a presurgical tool. (2) Some of their "costs" were based on reimbursement fees, which likely include not only costs but also profit building (ie, these are not costs, but rather charges). We used direct professional and technical costs. (3) Their strategy for follow-up screening required that all patients be followed annually. In our model, we followed only those patients who were found to have 30% to 59% stenosis on their first screen; patients with <30% stenosis on their first screen, which accounted for 62% of patients, were not followed. Finally, (4) they considered a very low rate of stenosis progression (0.5% annually). We also considered a rate that low, but in our baseline model the rate of progression from insignificant to significant disease was 9% annually.11
Several recent studies have compared different diagnostic test strategies in terms of accuracy, quality-adjusted survival, and monetary costs. Blakely et al14 performed a meta-analysis of the accuracy of US and MRA for detecting carotid artery disease. They found that duplex US and MRA have similar levels of accuracy. Unfortunately, these authors grouped together accuracy studies of 2D and 3D MRA. In our review of the MRA data, 3D MRA is much more specific than 2D MRA. Similarly, in a recent review of the MRA data, Bowen15 noted greater specificity with 3D MRA, necessitating separate evaluations of their accuracy.
Two studies have just been completed on the cost-effectiveness of various test strategies for symptomatic patients.53 54 In the study by Kent et al,53 the strategy offering the greatest quality-adjusted survival was one in which symptomatic patients undergo both US and 3D MRA. If the test results are disparate, the patient goes on to CA. Otherwise, if the stenosis is 70% to 99%, the patient proceeds directly to surgery. The next best strategy was US followed by CA if the US result is positive (similar to our strategy 1). The latter strategy was considerably cheaper than the first but resulted in a small loss in QALYs. The third best test strategy according to their model was US followed by MRA (similar to our strategy 4). However, the differences in QALYs between these three test strategies were very small, ie, <3 quality-adjusted days. Differences this small may not be meaningful clinically or statistically.
Vanninen et al54 studied 45 symptomatic patients with US, 3D MRA, and CA. From the accuracy results of this sample of patients, the authors compared the cost-effectiveness of seven test strategies for symptomatic patients. They concluded that the best test strategy for testing symptomatic patients was US followed by 3D MRA, if indicated. Our study arrived at this same conclusion, although our models differ considerably.
Our decision model has several limitations. First, we built the model based on estimates of prevalence and risk from the literature. These estimates are all potential sources of error; thus, our results are imprecise and may be biased. Second, our model assumed that the risk of stroke is a function of the degree of stenosis and the patient's clinical symptoms. However, Bornstein et al55 have suggested that the risk of stroke may also be a function of the rate of stenosis progression. They define the "stenotic index" to describe the risk of stroke as a function of both the amount of stenosis and the rate of progression. To our knowledge, there are no outcome studies that have correlated the risk of stroke with the stenotic index. Thus, we did not consider this model for the natural history of stroke at this time. Finally, our model makes several assumptions, such as patients undergo surgery only once; such simplifying assumptions are often necessary in building decision models. A randomized controlled clinical trial would overcome the limitations of our study design; however, the monetary costs and duration of such a study limit the practicality of this approach.
Conclusions
Our model of the natural history of carotid artery
stenosis suggests that asymptomatic patients with
an elevated risk of carotid artery disease, such as patients with
carotid bruits, may benefit from noninvasive screening if the
prevalence of operable lesions is 20%, the benefits of surgery are
similar to those observed in ACAS, and the quality of life with stroke
is considerably lower than the quality of life without stroke. The test
strategy of US followed by 3D TOF MRA, if indicated, is a promising
approach to screening asymptomatic patients and to testing
patients if they become symptomatic. Diagnostic
testing should be performed where the technical and professional staff
are adequately trained and experienced, the test protocols are
standardized, and there is ongoing quality improvement.
|
Selected Abbreviations and Acronyms |
|---|
|
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grant 2-ROl-HL43812-04. The authors thank four anonymous reviewers and Daniel Kent, MD, for insightful, constructive suggestions; David Hesselink and Chris Sowl for compilation of the cost data; and Linda Placko for secretarial assistance.
Received October 2, 1996; revision received March 24, 1997; accepted March 24, 1997.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. The CASANOVA Study Group. Carotid surgery versus medical therapy in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Stroke. 1991;22:1229-1235.
2.
Hobson RW, Weiss DG, Fields WS, Goldstone J, Moore WS,
Towne JB, Wright CB, Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. Efficacy
of carotid endarterectomy for
asymptomatic carotid stenosis. N Engl
J Med.. 1993;328:221-227.
3.
Executive Committee for Asymptomatic
Carotid Atherosclerosis Study.
Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid
artery stenosis. JAMA. 1995;273:1421-1428.
4. Feussner JR, Matchar DB. When and how to study the carotid arteries. Ann Intern Med.. 1988;109:805-818.
5. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group. MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial: interim results for symptomatic patients with severe (70-99%) or with mild (0-29%) carotid stenosis. Lancet. 1991;337:1235-1243.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med.. 1991;325:445-453.[Abstract]
7.
Mayberg MR, Wilson SE, Yatsu F, Weiss DG, Messina L,
Hershey LA, Colling C, Eskridge J, Deykin D, Winn HR. Carotid
endarterectomy and prevention of cerebral
ischemia in symptomatic carotid
stenosis. JAMA. 1991;266:3289-3294.
8.
Derdeyn CP, Powers WJ. Cost-effectiveness of
screening for asymptomatic carotid atherosclerotic
disease. Stroke. 1996;27:1944-1950.
9. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:322-338.
10. Matchar DB, Pauker SG. Transient ischemic attacks in a man with coronary artery disease: two strategies neck and neck. Med Decis Making. 1986,6:239-249.
11.
Roederer GO, Langlois YE, Jager KA, Primozich JF, Beach
KW, Phillips DJ, Strandness DE. The natural history of carotid
arterial disease in asymptomatic patients with
cervical bruits. Stroke. 1984;15:605-613.
12. Chambers BR, Norris JW. Outcome in patients with asymptomatic neck bruits. N Engl J Med.. 1986;315:860-865.[Abstract]
13. Beck JR, Kaussirer JP, Pauker SG. A convenient approximation of life expectancy (The `DEALE'). Am J Med.. 1982;73:883-888.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14.
Blakely DD, Oddone EZ, Hasselblad V, Simel DL, Matchar
DB. Noninvasive carotid artery testing: a meta-analytic
review. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:360-367.
15.
Bowen BC, Quencer RM, Margosian P, Pattany PM.
MR angiography of occlusive disease of the arteries in the head and
neck: current concepts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:9-18.
16. Chambers BR, Norris JEW. Outcome in patients with asymptomatic neck bruits. N Engl J Med.. 1986;315:860-865.
17.
Norris JEW, Zhu CZ, Bornstein NM, Chamber BR.
Vascular risks of asymptomatic carotid
stenosis. Stroke. 1991;22:1485-1490.
18.
Hennerici M, Hulsbomer H, Rautenberg W, Hefter
H. Spontaneous history of asymptomatic internal
carotid occlusion. Stroke. 1986;17:718-722.
19.
Wilterdink JL, Easton JD. Vascular event rates
in patients with atherosclerotic cerebrovascular disease.
Arch Neurol. 1992;49:857-863.
20.
Harrison MJG, Marshall J. Prognostic
significance of severity of carotid atheroma in early
manifestations of cerebrovascular disease. Stroke. 1982;13:567-569.
21.
Dennis M, Bamford J, Sandercock P, Warlow C.
Prognosis of transient ischemic attacks in the Oxfordshire
Community Stroke Project. Stroke. 1990;21:848-853.
22.
Chambers BR, Norris JEW, Shurvell BL, Hachinski
VC. Prognosis of acute stroke. Neurology. 1987;37:221-225.
23.
Hier DB, Foulks MA, Swiontoniowski M, Sacco RL,
Gorelick PB, Mohr JP, Price TR, Wolf PA. Stroke
recurrence within 2 years after ischemic
infarction. Stroke. 1991;22:155-161.
24. Bernstein EF, Torem S, Dilley RB. Does carotid restenosis predict an increased risk of late symptoms, stroke, or death? Ann Surg. 1990;212:629-636.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25. O'Donnell TF, Callow AD, Scott G, Shepard AD, Heggerick P, Mackey WC. Ultrasound characteristics of recurrent carotid disease: hypothesis explaining the low incidence of symptomatic recurrence. J Vasc Surg. 1985;2:26-41.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26. Carballo RE, Towne JB, Seabrook GR, Freischlag JA, Cambria RA. An outcome analysis of carotid endarterectomy: the incidence and natural history of recurrent stenosis. J Vasc Surg. 1996;23:749-754.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
27.
Heiserman JE, Drayer BP, Keller PJ, Fram EK.
Intracranial vascular stenosis and occlusion: evaluation with
three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography.
Radiology. 1992;185:667-673.
28.
Korogi Y, Takahashi M, Mabuchi N, Miki H, Shiga H,
Watabe T, O'Uchi T, Nakagawa T, Horikawa Y, Fujiwara S, Furuse
M. Intracranial vascular stenosis and occlusion:
diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional, Fourier
transform, time-of-flight MR angiography. Radiology. 1994;193:187-193.
29. Sundt TM, Sandok BA, Whisnant JP. Carotid endarterectomy: complications and preoperative assessment of risk. Mayo Clin Proc.. 1975;50:310-306.
30.
McCrory DC, Goldstein LB, Samsa GP, Oddone EZ, Landsman
PB, Moore WS, Matchar DB. Predicting complications of carotid
endarterectomy. Stroke. 1993;24:1285-1291.
31.
Marzewski DJ, Furlan AJ, Louis PS, Little JR, Modic MT,
Williams G. Intracranial internal carotid artery
stenosis: long-term prognosis. Stroke. 1982;13:821-824.
32. Schuler JJ, Flanigan P, Lim LT, Keifer T, Williams LR, Behrend AJ. The effect of carotid siphon stenosis on stroke rate, death, and relief of symptoms following elective carotid endarterectomy. Surgery. 1982;92:1058-1066.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
33.
Matchar DB, Pauker SG.
Endarterectomy in carotid artery disease: a
decision analysis. JAMA. 1987;258:793-798.
34. Luce BR, Elixhauser A. Estimating costs in the economic evaluation of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.. 1990;6:57-75.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
35. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, Klein BEK, Dorn N, Peterson K, Martin PA. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:89-102.
36.
Gage BF, Cardinalli AB, Albers GW, Owens
DK. Cost-effectiveness of warfarin and aspirin for prophylaxis
of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial
fibrillation. JAMA. 1995;274:1839-1845.
37. Mushlin AI, Fintor L. Is screening for breast cancer cost-effective? Cancer. 1992;69:1957-1962.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
38.
Mayberg MR, Winn HR.
Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid
artery stenosis: resolving the controversy.
JAMA. 1995;273:1459-1461.
39. Salasidis GC, Latter DA, Steinmetz OK, Blair JF, Graham AM. Carotid artery duplex scanning in preoperative assessment for coronary artery revascularization: the association between peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery stenosis, and stroke. J Vasc Surg. 1995;21:154-162.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
40. Berens ES, Kouchoukos NT, Murphy SF, Wareing TH. Preoperative carotid artery screening in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery. J Vasc Surg. 1992;15:313-323.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
41.
Tell GS, Polak JF, Ward BJ, Kittner SJ, Savage PJ,
Robbins J. Relation of smoking with carotid artery wall
thickness and stenosis in older adults: the
Cardiovascular Health Study.
Circulation. 1994;90:2905-2908.
42.
Fine-Edelstein JS, Wolf PA, O'Leary DH, Poehlman H,
Belanger AJ, Kase CS, D'Agostino RB. Precursors of extracranial
carotid atherosclerosis in the Framingham
Study. Neurology. 1994;44:1046-1050.
43. Fabris F, Zanocchi M, Bo M, Fonte G, Poli L, Bergoglio I, Ferrario E, Pernigotti L. Carotid plaque, aging, and risk factors: a study of 457 subjects. Stroke. 1994;25:1133-1140.[Abstract]
44. Ramsey DE, Miles RD, Lambeth A, Sumner DS. Prevalence of extracranial carotid artery disease: a survey of an asymptomatic population with noninvasive techniques. J Vasc Surg. 1987;5:584-588.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
45.
Sutton-Tyrrell K, Alcorn HG, Wolfson SK, Kelsey SF,
Kuller LH. Predictors of carotid stenosis in older
adults with and without isolated systolic hypertension.
Stroke. 1993;24:355-361.
46. Ghilardi G. Lesioni carotidee steno-obliterative e ipertensione arteriosa. Minerva Cardioangiol. 1994;42:461-467.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
47.
Pujia A, Rubba P, Spencer MP. Prevalence of
extracranial carotid artery disease detectable by echo-Doppler in
an elderly population. Stroke. 1992;23:818-822.
48. Colgan MP, Strode GR, Sommer JD, Gibbs JL, Sumner DS. Prevalence of asymptomatic carotid disease: results of duplex scanning in 348 unselected volunteers. J Vasc Surg. 1988;8:674-678.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
49.
Kanter MC, Tegeler CH, Pearce LA, Weinberger J,
Feinberg WM, Anderson DC, Gomel CR, Rothrock JF, Helgason CM, Hart
RG. Carotid stenosis in patients with atrial
fibrillation. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:1372-1377.
50.
Selhub J, Jacques PF, Bostom AG, D'Agostino RB, Wilson
PW, Belanger AJ, O'Leary DH, Wolf PA, Schaefer EJ, Rosenberg
IH. Association between plasma homocysteine concentrations and
extracranial carotid artery stenosis. N Engl
J Med. 1995;332:286-291.
51.
Barnett HJM, Barnes RW, Robertson JT. The
uncertainties surrounding carotid
endarterectomy. JAMA. 1992;268:3120-3121.
52.
Derdeyn CP, Powers WJ, Moran CJ, Cross DT, Allen
BT. Role of Doppler US in screening for carotid
atherosclerotic disease. Radiology. 1995;197:635-643.
53.
Kent KC, Kuntz KM, Patel MR, Kim D, Klufas RA,
Whittemore AD, Polak JF, Skillman JJ, Edelman RR.
Perioperative imaging strategies for carotid
endarterectomy: an analysis of morbidity
and cost-effectiveness in symptomatic patients.
JAMA. 1995;274:888-893.
54. Vanninen R, Manninen H, Soimakallio S. Imaging of carotid artery stenosis: clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1995;16:1875-1882.[Abstract]
55. Bornstein NM, Chadwick LG, Norris JW. The value of carotid Doppler ultrasound in asymptomatic extracranial arterial disease. Can J Neurol Sci.. 1988;15:378-383.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  R. Luengo-Fernandez, A. M. Gray, and P. M. Rothwell Costs of Stroke Using Patient-Level Data: A Critical Review of the Literature Stroke, February 1, 2009; 40(2): e18 - e23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. O. Tengs, M. Yu, E. Luistro, and H. B. Bosworth Health-Related Quality of Life After Stroke A Comprehensive Review Editorial Comment : Health-Related Quality Of Life After Stroke: A Comprehensive Review Stroke, April 1, 2001; 32(4): 964 - 972. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. K. Yucel, C. M. Anderson, R. R. Edelman, T. M. Grist, R. A. Baum, W. J. Manning, A. Culebras, and W. Pearce Magnetic Resonance Angiography : Update on Applications for Extracranial Arteries Circulation, November 30, 1999; 100(22): 2284 - 2301. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. A. Obuchowski, M. L. Lieber, M. Magdenic, M. T. Modic, P. M. Ruggieri, and T. J. Masaryk Small but Quantifiable Patient Preference for MRA Versus Catheter Angiography Stroke, October 1, 1999; 30 (10): 2238c - 2248. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. G. Holloway, C. G. Benesch, C. R. Rahilly, and C. E. Courtright A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Research of Stroke Evaluation and Treatment Stroke, July 1, 1999; 30(7): 1340 - 1349. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||