Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2017 Aug 15;241:255-261.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.02.149. Epub 2017 Mar 2.

MICE or NICE? An Economic Evaluation of Clinical Decision Rules in the Diagnosis of Heart Failure in Primary Care

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Observational Study

MICE or NICE? An Economic Evaluation of Clinical Decision Rules in the Diagnosis of Heart Failure in Primary Care

Mark Monahan et al. Int J Cardiol. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Detection and treatment of heart failure (HF) can improve quality of life and reduce premature mortality. However, symptoms such as breathlessness are common in primary care, have a variety of causes and not all patients require cardiac imaging. In systems where healthcare resources are limited, ensuring those patients who are likely to have HF undergo appropriate and timely investigation is vital.

Design: A decision tree was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of using the MICE (Male, Infarction, Crepitations, Edema) decision rule compared to other diagnostic strategies to identify HF patients presenting to primary care.

Methods: Data from REFER (REFer for EchocaRdiogram), a HF diagnostic accuracy study, was used to determine which patients received the correct diagnosis decision. The model adopted a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

Results: The current recommended National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for identifying patients with HF was the most cost-effective option with a cost of £4400 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to a "do nothing" strategy. That is, patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of HF should be referred straight for echocardiography if they had a history of myocardial infarction or if their NT-proBNP level was ≥400pg/ml. The MICE rule was more expensive and less effective than the other comparators. Base-case results were robust to sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: This represents the first cost-utility analysis comparing HF diagnostic strategies for symptomatic patients. Current guidelines in England were the most cost-effective option for identifying patients for confirmatory HF diagnosis. The low number of HF with Reduced Ejection Fraction patients (12%) in the REFER patient population limited the benefits of early detection.

Keywords: Cost benefit analysis; Economic model; General practice; Medical economics; Natriuretic peptide.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Decision tree of the different diagnostic strategies for patients presenting with heart failure symptoms in primary care.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier showing the optimal diagnostic strategy across a range of willingness to pay thresholds.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 article

References

    1. Taylor C.J., Hobbs F.R. Heart failure therapy in patients with coronary artery disease. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 2013;13:205–209. - PubMed
    1. Fuat A., Hungin A.P.S., Murphy J.J. Barriers to accurate diagnosis and effective management of heart failure in primary care: qualitative study. BMJ. 2003;326:196. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stewart S., Jenkins A., Buchan S., McGuire A., Capewell S., McMurray J.J. The current cost of heart failure to the National Health Service in the UK. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2002;4:361–371. - PubMed
    1. Brenner S., Güder G. The patient with dyspnea. Herz. 2014;39:8–14. - PubMed
    1. McMurray J.J., Adamopoulos S., Anker S.D. ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur. Heart J. 2012;33:1787–1847. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Feedback