Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography or Exercise Electrocardiogram in Individuals Without Known Cardiovascular Disease

It is not clear whether screening by coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) and/or exercise electrocardiogram (ECG) can improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs in individuals without known cardiovascular disease (CVD). In total, 71,811 consecutive individuals without known CVD who underwent general health examinations were enrolled. Using propensity-score matching according to screening tests, 1-year clinical outcomes and 6-month total and coronary artery disease–related medical costs were analyzed in separate groups: group 1 (CCTA [n = 2578] vs no screening [n = 5146]), group 2 (exercise ECG [n = 2898] vs no screening [n = 5796]), and group 3 (CCTA and exercise ECG [n = 2003] vs no screening [n = 4006]). There were no significant differences in the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in each matched group: group 1 (0.35% vs 0.45%, P = 0.501), group 2 (0.14% vs 0.28%, P = 0.157), and group 3 (0.25% vs 0.27%, P = 0.858). However, revascularization was more frequent in the CCTA screening groups: group 1 (2.02% vs 0.45%, P < 0.001) and group 3 (1.40% vs 0.45%, P < 0.001). Matched screening groups had higher 6-month total and coronary artery disease–related medical costs: group 1 ($777 vs $603, P < 0.001 and $177 vs $39, P < 0.001), group 2 ($544 vs $492, P = 0.045 and $12 vs $15, P = 0.611), and group 3 ($705 vs $627, P = 0.090 and $135 vs $35, P < 0.001). In individuals without known CVD, CCTA screening with or without exercise ECG led to more frequent revascularization at the expense of higher medical costs, but did not decrease the 1-year risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke.