Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis of Coronary Flow Velocity Reserve Assessment with Regadenoson Stress Echocardiography

Heming Zheng; Lijuan Zhang; Ran  Cao; Xiaozhi Zheng

doi:10.59958/hsf.8229

Authors

Heming Zheng Wenzhou-Kean University, 325060 Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2838-3460
Lijuan Zhang Department of Ultrasound, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 210031 Nanjing, Jiangsu, China https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4599-017X
Ran Cao Department of Ultrasound, Fuding Hospital Fujian Province/Fuding Hospital Affiliated to Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 355200 Fuding, Fujian, China https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0563-8883
Xiaozhi Zheng Department of Ultrasound, Yangpu Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, 200090 Shanghai, China https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7436-9949

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59958/hsf.8229

Keywords:

cost, Regadenoson, stress echocardiography, Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing

Abstract

Objective: Accurate measurement of healthcare costs is required to assess and improve the value of Regadenoson stress echocardiography (RSE). The purpose of this study was to determine the costs associated with Regadenoson stress echocardiography. Methods: Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) was used to calculate the non-directly traceable cost of RSE. Data were collected between January 2021 and December 2023. TDABC steps involved (1) constructing process maps for the RSE pathway; (2) determining capacity cost rates for staff, medical equipment, space, water and electricity; (3) measuring the time required for each process through direct observation and participation and (4) calculating the total non-directly traceable cost of RSE. Finally, the total costs of RSE were obtained by summing up the direct retroactive cost and non-directly traceable cost. Results: Total costs of RSE were 1306.18 Chinese Yuan ($181.60), of which Regadenoson, human resources and equipment accounted for 61.09%, 19.96% and 13.17%, respectively. Conclusion: Regadenoson expense was the greatest contributor to the costs of RSE, followed by labor cost. Understanding the actual costs and cost drivers of RSE may better inform resource utilization to lower the cost and improve the quality of RSE.

References

Simova I. Coronary Flow Velocity Reserve Assessment with Transthoracic Doppler Echocardiography. European Cardiology. 2015; 10: 12–18. https://doi.org/10.15420/ecr.2015.10.01.12.

Saraste M, Koskenvuo J, Knuuti J, Toikka J, Laine H, Niemi P, et al. Coronary flow reserve: measurement with transthoracic Doppler echocardiography is reproducible and comparable with positron emission tomography. Clinical Physiology (Oxford, England). 2001; 21: 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2281.2001.00296.x.

Caiati C, Montaldo C, Zedda N, Montisci R, Ruscazio M, Lai G, et al. Validation of a new noninvasive method (contrast-enhanced transthoracic second harmonic echo Doppler) for the evaluation of coronary flow reserve: comparison with intracoronary Doppler flow wire. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1999; 34: 1193–1200. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00342-3.

Hildick-Smith DJR, Maryan R, Shapiro LM. Assessment of coronary flow reserve by adenosine transthoracic echocardiography: validation with intracoronary Doppler. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography: Official Publication of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2002; 15: 984–990. https://doi.org/10.1067/mje.2002.120982.

Al Jaroudi W, Iskandrian AE. Regadenoson: a new myocardial stress agent. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2009; 54: 1123–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.04.089.

Cerqueira MD, Nguyen P, Staehr P, Underwood SR, Iskandrian AE, ADVANCE-MPI Trial Investigators. Effects of age, gender, obesity, and diabetes on the efficacy and safety of the selective A2A agonist regadenoson versus adenosine in myocardial perfusion imaging integrated ADVANCE-MPI trial results. JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging. 2008; 1: 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2008.02.003.

Iskandrian AE, Bateman TM, Belardinelli L, Blackburn B, Cerqueira MD, Hendel RC, et al. Adenosine versus regadenoson comparative evaluation in myocardial perfusion imaging: results of the ADVANCE phase 3 multicenter international trial. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology: Official Publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. 2007; 14: 645–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2007.06.114.

Palani G, Ananthasubramaniam K. Regadenoson: review of its established role in myocardial perfusion imaging and emerging applications. Cardiology in Review. 2013; 21: 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1097/CRD.0b013e3182613db6.

Drug Approval Package: Lexiscan (Regadenoson) NDA #022161. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2008/022161s000_LexiscanTOC.cfm (Accessed: 2 June 2008).

Porter ME. What is value in health care? The New England Journal of Medicine. 2010; 363: 2477–2481. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1011024.

Kaplan RS, Porter ME. How to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harvard Business Review. 2011; 89: 46–52, 54, 56–61 passim.

Kaplan RS, Anderson SR. Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: a simpler and more powerful path to higher profits. Press HBS: Boston, MA. 2007.

Niñerola A, Hernández-Lara AB, Sánchez-Rebull MV. Improving healthcare performance through Activity-Based Costing and Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management. 2021; 36: 2079–2093. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3304.

Go JA, Weng CY. Process Mapping and Activity-Based Costing of the Intravitreal Injection Procedure. Current Eye Research. 2021; 46: 694–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2020.1825747.

Latorre V, Messeni Petruzzelli A, Uva AE, Ranaudo C, Semisa D. Unveiling the actual cost of Schizophrenia: An Activity-Based Costing (ABC) approach. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management. 2022; 37: 1366–1380. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3405.

Özyapıcı H, Tanış VN. Comparison of cost determination of both resource consumption accounting and time-driven activity-based costing systems in a healthcare setting. Australian Health Review: a Publication of the Australian Hospital Association. 2017; 41: 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15046.

Nabelsi V, Plouffe V. Breast cancer treatment pathway improvement using time-driven activity-based costing. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management. 2019; 34: e1736–e1746. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2887.

Javid M, Hadian M, Ghaderi H, Ghaffari S, Salehi M. Application of the Activity-Based Costing Method for Unit-Cost Calculation in a Hospital. Global Journal of Health Science. 2015; 8: 165–172. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v8n1p165.

Niñerola A, Hernández-Lara AB, Sánchez-Rebull MV. Is Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Coming out on Top? A Comparison with Activity-Based Costing in the Health Field. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland). 2021; 9: 1113. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9091113.

Keel G, Savage C, Rafiq M, Mazzocato P. Time-driven activity-based costing in health care: A systematic review of the literature. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2017; 121: 755–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.04.013.

Shankar PR, Hayatghaibi SE, Anzai Y. Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in Radiology: An Overview. Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR. 2020; 17: 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2019.07.010.

Alves RJV, Etges APBDS, Neto GB, Polanczyk CA. Activity-Based Costing and Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing for Assessing the Costs of Cancer Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Value in Health Regional Issues. 2018; 17: 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2018.06.001.

Lievens Y, van den Bogaert W, Kesteloot K. Activity-based costing: a practical model for cost calculation in radiotherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2003; 57: 522–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(03)00579-0.

Ken Lee KH, Matthew Austin J, Pronovost PJ. Developing a Measure of Value in Health Care. Value in Health: the Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2016; 19: 323–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.009.

Johnson SG, Peters S. Advances in pharmacologic stress agents: focus on regadenoson. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology. 2010; 38: 163–171. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.109.065581.

Alzahrani T, Khiyani N, Zeltser R. Adenosine SPECT Thallium Imaging. 2022 Sep 12. StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island (FL). 2024.

Brink HL, Dickerson JA, Stephens JA, Pickworth KK. Comparison of the Safety of Adenosine and Regadenoson in Patients Undergoing Outpatient Cardiac Stress Testing. Pharmacotherapy. 2015; 35: 1117–1123. https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.1669.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis of Coronary Flow Velocity Reserve Assessment with Regadenoson Stress Echocardiography

Authors

DOI:

Keywords:

Abstract

References

Published

How to Cite

Issue

Section