Outcomes and costs of positron emission tomography: Comparison of intravenous adenosine and intravenous dipyridamole

Mark Jeffrey Holmberg, Syed M. Mohiuddin, Daniel E. Hilleman, B. Daniel Lucas, E. Chuma Wadibia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the cost of intravenous adenosine and intravenous dipyridamole in positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with coronary artery disease. A retrospective, open-label, case-control, cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in the outpatient nuclear medicine department of a university hospital. Thirty-six patients underwent dipyridamole PET, and 72 matched patients underwent adenosine PET. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a direct cost accounting approach to estimate institutional costs. Key costs evaluated included acquisition cost, administration cost, monitoring cost, cost of management of side effects, and cost of follow-up care. The total cost of adenosine PET and dipyridamole PET was divided by their respective predictive accuracies to provide a total cost adjusted for efficacy. Adenosine increased heart rate and lowered systolic blood pressure to a significantly greater extent than dipyridamole. The number of patients experiencing adverse drug reactions was significantly greater for adenosine (82%) than for dipyridamole (67%), but the frequency of prolonged (>5 minutes) and late-onset side effects was significantly greater for dipyridamole than for adenosine. The frequency of side effects requiring medical intervention was also significantly greater for dipyridamole (53%) than for adenosine (6%). Although adenosine had a significantly greater acquisition cost than dipyridamole, costs of monitoring, management of side effects, and follow-up care were significantly less for adenosine than for dipyridamole. As a result, the total cost of using dipyridamole is significantly greater ($928.00 per patient) than the total cost of using adenosine ($672.00 per patient). Based on these results, adenosine may be the drug of choice for pharmacologic vasodilation for PET.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)570-581
Number of pages12
JournalClinical Therapeutics
Volume19
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1997

Fingerprint

Dipyridamole
Positron-Emission Tomography
Adenosine
Costs and Cost Analysis
Aftercare
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Blood Pressure
Nuclear Medicine
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Vasodilation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacology

Cite this

@article{b3915c65e00348b2b4d73d1e67fd0bc9,
title = "Outcomes and costs of positron emission tomography: Comparison of intravenous adenosine and intravenous dipyridamole",
abstract = "The objective of this study was to compare the cost of intravenous adenosine and intravenous dipyridamole in positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with coronary artery disease. A retrospective, open-label, case-control, cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in the outpatient nuclear medicine department of a university hospital. Thirty-six patients underwent dipyridamole PET, and 72 matched patients underwent adenosine PET. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a direct cost accounting approach to estimate institutional costs. Key costs evaluated included acquisition cost, administration cost, monitoring cost, cost of management of side effects, and cost of follow-up care. The total cost of adenosine PET and dipyridamole PET was divided by their respective predictive accuracies to provide a total cost adjusted for efficacy. Adenosine increased heart rate and lowered systolic blood pressure to a significantly greater extent than dipyridamole. The number of patients experiencing adverse drug reactions was significantly greater for adenosine (82{\%}) than for dipyridamole (67{\%}), but the frequency of prolonged (>5 minutes) and late-onset side effects was significantly greater for dipyridamole than for adenosine. The frequency of side effects requiring medical intervention was also significantly greater for dipyridamole (53{\%}) than for adenosine (6{\%}). Although adenosine had a significantly greater acquisition cost than dipyridamole, costs of monitoring, management of side effects, and follow-up care were significantly less for adenosine than for dipyridamole. As a result, the total cost of using dipyridamole is significantly greater ($928.00 per patient) than the total cost of using adenosine ($672.00 per patient). Based on these results, adenosine may be the drug of choice for pharmacologic vasodilation for PET.",
author = "Holmberg, {Mark Jeffrey} and Mohiuddin, {Syed M.} and Hilleman, {Daniel E.} and Lucas, {B. Daniel} and Wadibia, {E. Chuma}",
year = "1997",
doi = "10.1016/S0149-2918(97)80141-5",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "570--581",
journal = "Clinical Therapeutics",
issn = "0149-2918",
publisher = "Excerpta Medica",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcomes and costs of positron emission tomography

T2 - Comparison of intravenous adenosine and intravenous dipyridamole

AU - Holmberg, Mark Jeffrey

AU - Mohiuddin, Syed M.

AU - Hilleman, Daniel E.

AU - Lucas, B. Daniel

AU - Wadibia, E. Chuma

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - The objective of this study was to compare the cost of intravenous adenosine and intravenous dipyridamole in positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with coronary artery disease. A retrospective, open-label, case-control, cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in the outpatient nuclear medicine department of a university hospital. Thirty-six patients underwent dipyridamole PET, and 72 matched patients underwent adenosine PET. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a direct cost accounting approach to estimate institutional costs. Key costs evaluated included acquisition cost, administration cost, monitoring cost, cost of management of side effects, and cost of follow-up care. The total cost of adenosine PET and dipyridamole PET was divided by their respective predictive accuracies to provide a total cost adjusted for efficacy. Adenosine increased heart rate and lowered systolic blood pressure to a significantly greater extent than dipyridamole. The number of patients experiencing adverse drug reactions was significantly greater for adenosine (82%) than for dipyridamole (67%), but the frequency of prolonged (>5 minutes) and late-onset side effects was significantly greater for dipyridamole than for adenosine. The frequency of side effects requiring medical intervention was also significantly greater for dipyridamole (53%) than for adenosine (6%). Although adenosine had a significantly greater acquisition cost than dipyridamole, costs of monitoring, management of side effects, and follow-up care were significantly less for adenosine than for dipyridamole. As a result, the total cost of using dipyridamole is significantly greater ($928.00 per patient) than the total cost of using adenosine ($672.00 per patient). Based on these results, adenosine may be the drug of choice for pharmacologic vasodilation for PET.

AB - The objective of this study was to compare the cost of intravenous adenosine and intravenous dipyridamole in positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with coronary artery disease. A retrospective, open-label, case-control, cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in the outpatient nuclear medicine department of a university hospital. Thirty-six patients underwent dipyridamole PET, and 72 matched patients underwent adenosine PET. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a direct cost accounting approach to estimate institutional costs. Key costs evaluated included acquisition cost, administration cost, monitoring cost, cost of management of side effects, and cost of follow-up care. The total cost of adenosine PET and dipyridamole PET was divided by their respective predictive accuracies to provide a total cost adjusted for efficacy. Adenosine increased heart rate and lowered systolic blood pressure to a significantly greater extent than dipyridamole. The number of patients experiencing adverse drug reactions was significantly greater for adenosine (82%) than for dipyridamole (67%), but the frequency of prolonged (>5 minutes) and late-onset side effects was significantly greater for dipyridamole than for adenosine. The frequency of side effects requiring medical intervention was also significantly greater for dipyridamole (53%) than for adenosine (6%). Although adenosine had a significantly greater acquisition cost than dipyridamole, costs of monitoring, management of side effects, and follow-up care were significantly less for adenosine than for dipyridamole. As a result, the total cost of using dipyridamole is significantly greater ($928.00 per patient) than the total cost of using adenosine ($672.00 per patient). Based on these results, adenosine may be the drug of choice for pharmacologic vasodilation for PET.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030763658&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030763658&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0149-2918(97)80141-5

DO - 10.1016/S0149-2918(97)80141-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 9220220

AN - SCOPUS:0030763658

VL - 19

SP - 570

EP - 581

JO - Clinical Therapeutics

JF - Clinical Therapeutics

SN - 0149-2918

IS - 3

ER -