Cost-effectiveness and diagnostic accuracy of focused cardiac ultrasound in the pre-participation screening of athletes: the SPORT-FoCUS study

Le résumé fourni par la source

AIMS: The role of pre-participation screening (PPS) modalities in preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in athletes is debated due to a high false-positive rate. Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) has shown higher sensitivity and specificity, but its cost-effectiveness remains uncertain. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness of FoCUS use in PPS. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2111 athletes (77.4% male, mean age 24.9 ± 15.2years) underwent standardized family and medical history collection, physical examination, resting electrocardiography (ECG), FoCUS (10 min/5 views protocol), comprehensive echocardiography and exercise stress test. We prospectively evaluated three PPS incremental models: Model A, standardized medical history and physical examination Model B, Model A plus resting and stress ECG and Model C, Model B plus FoCUS (10 min/5 views protocol). We determined their incremental diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness ratio. A total of 30 athletes were diagnosed with a cardiac condition associated with SCD: 3 were identified by Model A, 14 by Model B, and 13 athletes by Model C. The introduction of FoCUS markedly increased the sensitivity of PPS, compared with Model A and Model B (sensitivity 94% vs. 19% vs. 58% specificity 93% vs. 93% vs. 92%). The total screening costs were as follows: Model A 35.64 euros, Model B 87.68 euros, and Model C 120.89 euros. Considering the sole conditions at risk of SCD, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 135.62 euros for Model B and 114.31 for Model C. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of FoCUS into the PPS allows to identify a significantly greater number of athletes at risk of SCD and markedly lowers the false negative rate. Furthermore, the incorporation of FoCUS into the screening process has shown to be cost-effective.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.