Abstract 4142502: Stepwise Screening with AI-Enhanced Electrocardiogram and Point-of-Care Ultrasound Improves Cost Savings of Structural Heart Disease Detection Compared to AI-Enhanced Electrocardiogram Alone

Background: AI-ECG is a cost-effective tool for left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) screening. However, its cost-effectiveness for other forms of structural heart disease (SHD) is unknown. While AI-ECG is inexpensive, a drawback is low positive predictive value (PPV), which leads to high costs from unnecessary follow-up tests. Therefore, strategies to improve the yield of AI-ECG-based screening are needed. Aim: To evaluate the cost savings of a stepwise approach to SHD screening with AI-ECG followed by POCUS compared to AI-ECG alone. Methods: 286 adult outpatients undergoing AI-ECG were selected at random. Participants received same-day POCUS and had a recent TTE (our gold standard for SHD). We evaluated four SHDs: aortic stenosis (AS), cardiac amyloidosis (CA), HCM, and LVD. The costs of AI-ECG ($75) and TTE ($1,305) were obtained from Healthcare Bluebook. The cost of POCUS ($100) was estimated independently. Cost savings were analyzed for simultaneous screening for all forms of SHD and screening for individual SHDs. Results: AI-ECG identified potential SHD in 125 patients, but only 39 were true positives by TTE (31% PPV). In AI-ECG positive patients, POCUS demonstrated findings of SHD in 52/125. Compared to TTE, this stepwise approach yielded 32 true positives and 20 false positives (62% PPV). The cost per patient diagnosed with SHD was $4,733 with AI-ECG alone but decreased to $3,182 with stepwise screening (33% cost savings). Screening for individual SHDs resulted in cost reduction from $18,724 to $6,315 (66% savings) for AS, $21,023 to $12,230 (42% savings) for CA, $9,883 to $6,175 (38% savings) for HCM, and $4,019 to $3,582 (11% savings) for LVD. Conclusions: Stepwise screening for SHD with AI-ECG followed by POCUS significantly reduces costs compared to AI-ECG alone. We also suggest a model for parallel screening for multiple SHDs, which is likely more cost-effective than screening for individual SHDs.