MR angiography versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography of the lower extremities: activity-based cost analysis.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyse the costs pertaining to the radiology department of magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in the evaluation of arterial disease of the lower limbs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The differential cost of the two procedures, i.e. the sum of equipment costs (amortisation and service contract), variable costs (supplies and related services) and personnel costs (radiologist, radiographer and nurse) was determined. The common cost (auxiliary personnel and indirect internal costs) was also calculated. Finally, the full cost of the two procedures was obtained (sum of differential and common costs). RESULTS: The differential cost of MRA was 186.14 euro (equipment costs: 50.80 euro, variable costs: 75.04 euro, personnel costs: 60.30 euro) while the differential cost of intra-arterial DSA was 238.18 euro (equipment costs: 57.60 euro, variable costs: 90.13 euro, staff costs: 90.45 euro). The estimated common cost was 5.62 euro. Therefore, the full cost of MRA was 191.76 euro and the full cost of intra-arterial DSA was 243.80 euro (27.1% higher). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Intra-arterial DSA costs more than MRA, mainly because of the higher costs of supplies used during the procedure and higher personnel costs (as a result of the longer duration of intra-arterial DSA). It should be noted that our evaluation considers costs pertaining to the radiology department only. It is evident that an economic analysis considering hospital costs as well would result in much higher costs for DSA if post-procedure hospitalisation is required. Our results cannot be simply exported to other radiology departments since they refer to the technology and organisation adopted in our department. However, our cost analysis model can be easily applied to other environments. MRA provides good diagnostic accuracy in the evaluation of arteries of the lower extremities, and its biological cost is far lower than that of intra-arterial DSA (MRA is noninvasive, it does not use ionising radiation, and the contrast medium is safe). Its lower cost is another argument in favour of the use of MRA instead of intra-arterial DSA in the evaluation of lower-extremity arterial disease.