MR and conventional angiography: Work in progress toward assessing utility in radiology

J. Shannon Swan; Dennis G Fryback; William F Lawrence; David A Katz; Dennis M Heisey; Mary Ellen Hagenauer; Peter M Seizer; Bruce K Jacobson

doi:10.1016/S1076-6332(97)80231-0

Back

MR and conventional angiography: Work in progress toward assessing utility in radiology

Journal article

Open access

Peer reviewed

MR and conventional angiography: Work in progress toward assessing utility in radiology

J. Shannon Swan, Dennis G Fryback, William F Lawrence, David A Katz, Dennis M Heisey, Mary Ellen Hagenauer, Peter M Seizer and Bruce K Jacobson

Academic radiology, Vol.4(7), pp.475-482

1997

DOI: 10.1016/S1076-6332(97)80231-0

PMID: 9232166

Files and links (1)

url

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(97)80231-0View

Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

The authors assessed health-related quality of life changes associated with peripheral x-ray angiography and magnetic resonance (MR) angiography. Utility (the desirability or preference that individuals exhibit for a particular health state) was assessed in 30 patients with peripheral vascular disease referred for angiography by using a rating scale, additional categoric scaling questions to separate preference from experience, a willingness-to-pay technique, functional and cognitive status questions, and a time trade-off technique. All patients underwent both MR angiography and x-ray angiography. Patients reported significantly ( P < .05) less anxiety after the test, less pain after the test, fewer new physical limitations, and less effect on performance of daily activities with MR angiography. Findings from the overall rating scale and categoric scaling questions also significantly ( P < .05) favored MR angiography. Patients were willing to pay a mean of 2.12% of annual income to avoid MR angiography and a mean of 7.41% to avoid x-ray angiography. The median quality-adjusted life gain required by patients to undergo the procedures was 52.5–60 days for x-ray angiography and 10.5 days for MR angiography, without discounting. X-ray angiography has more profound short-term adverse effects on quality of life than does MR angiography. Preference-based measures can be adapted to elicit patient values for short-term health states as seen in radiology.

Quality of Life

cost-effectiveness

Angiography, comparative studies

Details

Title: Subtitle: MR and conventional angiography: Work in progress toward assessing utility in radiology
Creators: J. Shannon Swan - Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792, USA
Dennis G Fryback - Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792, USA
William F Lawrence - Department of Internal Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792, USA
David A Katz - Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792, USA
Dennis M Heisey - Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792, USA
Mary Ellen Hagenauer - Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792, USA
Peter M Seizer - Department of Radiology, Meriter Hospital, Madison, Wis., USA
Bruce K Jacobson - Department of Surgery, Meriter Hospital, Madison, Wis., USA
Resource Type: Journal article
Publication Details: Academic radiology, Vol.4(7), pp.475-482
DOI: 10.1016/S1076-6332(97)80231-0
PMID: 9232166
NLM abbreviation: Acad Radiol
ISSN: 1076-6332
eISSN: 1878-4046
Publisher: Elsevier Inc
Language: English
Date published: 1997
Academic Unit: Epidemiology; General Internal Medicine; Internal Medicine
Record Identifier: 9984094607302771

Metrics

15 Record Views

29 Times Cited - Web of Science