@article{DorenkampBonaventuraSohnsetal.2012,
  author    = {Dorenkamp, Marc and Bonaventura, Klaus and Sohns, Christian and Becker, Christoph R. and Leber, Alexander W.},
  title     = {Direct costs and cost-effectiveness of dual-source computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography in patients with an intermediate pretest likelihood for coronary artery disease},
  series = {Heart},
  volume    = {98},
  journal   = {Heart},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {BMJ Publ. Group},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1355-6037},
  doi       = {10.1136/heartjnl-2011-300149},
  pages     = {460 -- 467},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Aims The study aims to determine the direct costs and comparative cost-effectiveness of latest-generation dual-source computed tomography (DSCT) and invasive coronary angiography for diagnosing coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients suspected of having this disease. Methods The study was based on a previously elaborated cohort with an intermediate pretest likelihood for CAD and on complementary clinical data. Cost calculations were based on a detailed analysis of direct costs, and generally accepted accounting principles were applied. Based on Bayes' theorem, a mathematical model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of both diagnostic approaches. Total costs included direct costs, induced costs and costs of complications. Effectiveness was defined as the ability of a diagnostic test to accurately identify a patient with CAD. Results Direct costs amounted to (sic)98.60 for DSCT and to (sic)317.75 for invasive coronary angiography. Analysis of model calculations indicated that cost-effectiveness grew hyperbolically with increasing prevalence of CAD. Given the prevalence of CAD in the study cohort (24\%), DSCT was found to be more cost-effective than invasive coronary angiography ((sic)970 vs (sic)1354 for one patient correctly diagnosed as having CAD). At a disease prevalence of 49\%, DSCT and invasive angiography were equally effective with costs of (sic)633. Above a threshold value of disease prevalence of 55\%, proceeding directly to invasive coronary angiography was more cost-effective than DSCT. Conclusions With proper patient selection and consideration of disease prevalence, DSCT coronary angiography is cost-effective for diagnosing CAD in patients with an intermediate pretest likelihood for it. However, the range of eligible patients may be smaller than previously reported.},
  language  = {en}
}
@inproceedings{WangMayerDorenkampetal.2012,
  author    = {Wang, Victor C. and Mayer, Frank and Dorenkamp, Marc and Bonaventura, Klaus},
  title     = {Three-dimensional global area tracking is a valuable quantitative parameter for left ventricular function in athletes},
  series = {Medicine and science in sports and exercise : official journal of the American College of Sports Medicine},
  volume    = {44},
  booktitle = {Medicine and science in sports and exercise : official journal of the American College of Sports Medicine},
  publisher = {Lippincott Williams \& Wilkins},
  address   = {Philadelphia},
  issn      = {0195-9131},
  pages     = {850 -- 850},
  year      = {2012},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BonaventuraLeberSohnsetal.2012,
  author    = {Bonaventura, Klaus and Leber, Alexander W. and Sohns, Christian and Roser, Mattias and Boldt, Leif-Hendrik and Kleber, Franz X. and Haverkamp, Wilhelm and Dorenkamp, Marc},
  title     = {Cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty and paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation for treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease},
  series = {Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society.},
  volume    = {101},
  journal   = {Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society.},
  number    = {7},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Heidelberg},
  issn      = {1861-0684},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00392-012-0428-2},
  pages     = {573 -- 584},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Recent studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). The cost-effectiveness of this practice is unknown. A Markov state-transition decision analytic model accounting for varying procedural efficacy rates, complication rates, and cost estimates was developed to compare DCB angioplasty with drug-eluting stent (DES) placement in patients with bare-metal stent (BMS)-ISR. Data on procedural outcomes associated with both treatment strategies were derived from the literature, and the cost analysis was conducted from a health care payer perspective. Effectiveness was expressed as life-years gained. In the base-case analysis, initial procedure costs amounted to a,not sign3,604.14 for DCB angioplasty and to a,not sign3,309.66 for DES implantation. Over a 12-month time horizon, the DCB strategy was found to be less costly (a,not sign4,130.38 vs. a,not sign5,305.30) and slightly more effective in terms of life expectancy (0.983 vs. 0.976 years) than the DES strategy. Extensive sensitivity analyses indicated that, in comparison with DES implantation, the cost advantage of the DCB strategy was robust to clinically plausible variations in the values of key model input parameters. The variables with the greatest impact on base-case results were the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel after DCB angioplasty, the use of generic clopidogrel, and variations in the costs associated with the DCB device. DCB angioplasty is a cost-effective treatment option for coronary BMS-ISR. The higher initial costs of DCB are more than offset by later cost-savings, predominantly as a result of reduced medication costs.},
  language  = {en}
}