ArticleERJ open research2025
Cost-effectiveness of follow-up algorithms for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension in pulmonary embolism survivors.
Article in ERJ open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Key elements of follow-up care after acute pulmonary embolism focusing on long-term sequelae: a Delphi study among European experts.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Achieving an early diagnosis of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) in pulmonary embolism (PE) survivors results in better quality of life and survival. Importantly, dedicated follow-up strategies to achieve an earlier CTEPH diagnosis involve costs that were not explicitly incorporated in the models assessing their cost-effectiveness. We performed an economic evaluation of 11 distinct PE follow-up algorithms to determine which should be preferred. Materials and methods: 11 different PE follow-up algorithms and one hypothetical scenario without a dedicated CTEPH follow-up algorithm were included in a Markov model. Diagnostic accuracy of consecutive tests was estimated from patient-level data of the InShape II study (n=424). The lifelong costs per CTEPH patient were compared and related to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each scenario. Results: Compared to not performing dedicated follow-up, the integrated follow-up algorithms are associated with an estimated increase of 0.89-1.2 QALYs against an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 25 700-46 300 per QALY per CTEPH patient. When comparing different algorithms with each other, the maximum differences were 0.27 QALYs and EUR 27 600. The most cost-effective algorithm was the InShape IV algorithm, with an ICER of EUR 26 700 per QALY compared to the next best algorithm. Conclusion: Subjecting all PE survivors to any of the currently established dedicated follow-up algorithms to detect CTEPH is cost-effective and preferred above not performing a dedicated follow-up, evaluated against the Dutch acceptability threshold of EUR 50 000 per QALY. The model can be used to identify the locally preferred algorithm from an economical point-of-view within local logistical possibilities.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.