Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient

Abstract Background: In multivessel disease patients with moderate stenosis, fractional flow reserve (FFR) allows the analysis of the lesions and guides treatment, and could contribute to the cost-effectiveness (CE) of non-pharmacological stents (NPS). Objectives: To evaluate CE and clinical impact of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided angioplasty (ANGIO) in multivessel patients using NPS. Methods: Multivessel disease patients were prospectively randomized to FFR or ANGIO groups during a 5 year-period and followed for < 12 months. Outcomes measures were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), restenosis and CE. Results: We studied 69 patients, 47 (68.1%) men, aged 62.0 ± 9.0 years, 34 (49.2%) in FFR group and 53 (50.7%) in ANGIO group, with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome. In FFR, there were 26 patients with biarterial disease (76.5%) and 8 (23.5%) with triarterial disease, and in ANGIO, 24 (68.6%) with biarterial and 11 (31.4%) with triarterial disease. Twelve MACEs were observed - 3 deaths: 2 (5.8%) in FFR and 1 (2.8%) in ANGIO, 9 (13.0%) angina: 4(11.7%) in FFR and 5(14.2%) in ANGIO, 6 restenosis: 2(5.8%) in FFR and 4 (11.4%) in ANGIO. Angiography detected 87(53.0%) lesions in FFR, 39(23.7%) with PCI and 48(29.3%) with medical treatment; and 77 (47.0%) lesions in ANGIO, all treated with angioplasty. Thirty-nine (33.3%) stents were registered in FFR (0.45 ± 0.50 stents/lesion) and 78 (1.05 ± 0.22 stents/lesion) in ANGIO (p = 0.0001), 51.4% greater in ANGIO than FFR. CE analysis revealed a cost of BRL 5,045.97 BRL 5,430.60 in ANGIO and FFR, respectively. The difference of effectiveness was of 1.82%. Conclusion: FFR reduced the number of lesions treated and stents, and the need for target-lesion revascularization, with a CE comparable with that of angiography.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Quintella,Edgard Freitas, Ferreira,Esmeralci, Azevedo,Vitor Manuel Pereira, Araujo,Denizar V., Sant'Anna,Fernando Mendes, Amorim,Bernardo, Albuquerque,Denilson Campos de
Format: Digital revista
Language:English
Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia - SBC 2019
Online Access:http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0066-782X2019000100040
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:scielo:S0066-782X2019000100040
record_format ojs
spelling oai:scielo:S0066-782X20190001000402019-02-07Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease PatientQuintella,Edgard FreitasFerreira,EsmeralciAzevedo,Vitor Manuel PereiraAraujo,Denizar V.Sant'Anna,Fernando MendesAmorim,BernardoAlbuquerque,Denilson Campos de Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial Cost-Benefit Analysis Coronary Artery Disease/economics Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary Stents Reserva Fracionada do Fluxo Miocárdio Análise de Custo Benefício Doença da Artéria Coronariana Angioplastia Coronária com Balão Stents Abstract Background: In multivessel disease patients with moderate stenosis, fractional flow reserve (FFR) allows the analysis of the lesions and guides treatment, and could contribute to the cost-effectiveness (CE) of non-pharmacological stents (NPS). Objectives: To evaluate CE and clinical impact of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided angioplasty (ANGIO) in multivessel patients using NPS. Methods: Multivessel disease patients were prospectively randomized to FFR or ANGIO groups during a 5 year-period and followed for < 12 months. Outcomes measures were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), restenosis and CE. Results: We studied 69 patients, 47 (68.1%) men, aged 62.0 ± 9.0 years, 34 (49.2%) in FFR group and 53 (50.7%) in ANGIO group, with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome. In FFR, there were 26 patients with biarterial disease (76.5%) and 8 (23.5%) with triarterial disease, and in ANGIO, 24 (68.6%) with biarterial and 11 (31.4%) with triarterial disease. Twelve MACEs were observed - 3 deaths: 2 (5.8%) in FFR and 1 (2.8%) in ANGIO, 9 (13.0%) angina: 4(11.7%) in FFR and 5(14.2%) in ANGIO, 6 restenosis: 2(5.8%) in FFR and 4 (11.4%) in ANGIO. Angiography detected 87(53.0%) lesions in FFR, 39(23.7%) with PCI and 48(29.3%) with medical treatment; and 77 (47.0%) lesions in ANGIO, all treated with angioplasty. Thirty-nine (33.3%) stents were registered in FFR (0.45 ± 0.50 stents/lesion) and 78 (1.05 ± 0.22 stents/lesion) in ANGIO (p = 0.0001), 51.4% greater in ANGIO than FFR. CE analysis revealed a cost of BRL 5,045.97 BRL 5,430.60 in ANGIO and FFR, respectively. The difference of effectiveness was of 1.82%. Conclusion: FFR reduced the number of lesions treated and stents, and the need for target-lesion revascularization, with a CE comparable with that of angiography.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia - SBCArquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia v.112 n.1 20192019-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0066-782X2019000100040en10.5935/abc.20180262
institution SCIELO
collection OJS
country Brasil
countrycode BR
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-scielo-br
tag revista
region America del Sur
libraryname SciELO
language English
format Digital
author Quintella,Edgard Freitas
Ferreira,Esmeralci
Azevedo,Vitor Manuel Pereira
Araujo,Denizar V.
Sant'Anna,Fernando Mendes
Amorim,Bernardo
Albuquerque,Denilson Campos de
spellingShingle Quintella,Edgard Freitas
Ferreira,Esmeralci
Azevedo,Vitor Manuel Pereira
Araujo,Denizar V.
Sant'Anna,Fernando Mendes
Amorim,Bernardo
Albuquerque,Denilson Campos de
Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient
author_facet Quintella,Edgard Freitas
Ferreira,Esmeralci
Azevedo,Vitor Manuel Pereira
Araujo,Denizar V.
Sant'Anna,Fernando Mendes
Amorim,Bernardo
Albuquerque,Denilson Campos de
author_sort Quintella,Edgard Freitas
title Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient
title_short Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient
title_full Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient
title_fullStr Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient
title_full_unstemmed Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient
title_sort clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis of ffr compared with angiography in multivessel disease patient
description Abstract Background: In multivessel disease patients with moderate stenosis, fractional flow reserve (FFR) allows the analysis of the lesions and guides treatment, and could contribute to the cost-effectiveness (CE) of non-pharmacological stents (NPS). Objectives: To evaluate CE and clinical impact of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided angioplasty (ANGIO) in multivessel patients using NPS. Methods: Multivessel disease patients were prospectively randomized to FFR or ANGIO groups during a 5 year-period and followed for < 12 months. Outcomes measures were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), restenosis and CE. Results: We studied 69 patients, 47 (68.1%) men, aged 62.0 ± 9.0 years, 34 (49.2%) in FFR group and 53 (50.7%) in ANGIO group, with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome. In FFR, there were 26 patients with biarterial disease (76.5%) and 8 (23.5%) with triarterial disease, and in ANGIO, 24 (68.6%) with biarterial and 11 (31.4%) with triarterial disease. Twelve MACEs were observed - 3 deaths: 2 (5.8%) in FFR and 1 (2.8%) in ANGIO, 9 (13.0%) angina: 4(11.7%) in FFR and 5(14.2%) in ANGIO, 6 restenosis: 2(5.8%) in FFR and 4 (11.4%) in ANGIO. Angiography detected 87(53.0%) lesions in FFR, 39(23.7%) with PCI and 48(29.3%) with medical treatment; and 77 (47.0%) lesions in ANGIO, all treated with angioplasty. Thirty-nine (33.3%) stents were registered in FFR (0.45 ± 0.50 stents/lesion) and 78 (1.05 ± 0.22 stents/lesion) in ANGIO (p = 0.0001), 51.4% greater in ANGIO than FFR. CE analysis revealed a cost of BRL 5,045.97 BRL 5,430.60 in ANGIO and FFR, respectively. The difference of effectiveness was of 1.82%. Conclusion: FFR reduced the number of lesions treated and stents, and the need for target-lesion revascularization, with a CE comparable with that of angiography.
publisher Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia - SBC
publishDate 2019
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0066-782X2019000100040
work_keys_str_mv AT quintellaedgardfreitas clinicaloutcomesandcosteffectivenessanalysisofffrcomparedwithangiographyinmultivesseldiseasepatient
AT ferreiraesmeralci clinicaloutcomesandcosteffectivenessanalysisofffrcomparedwithangiographyinmultivesseldiseasepatient
AT azevedovitormanuelpereira clinicaloutcomesandcosteffectivenessanalysisofffrcomparedwithangiographyinmultivesseldiseasepatient
AT araujodenizarv clinicaloutcomesandcosteffectivenessanalysisofffrcomparedwithangiographyinmultivesseldiseasepatient
AT santannafernandomendes clinicaloutcomesandcosteffectivenessanalysisofffrcomparedwithangiographyinmultivesseldiseasepatient
AT amorimbernardo clinicaloutcomesandcosteffectivenessanalysisofffrcomparedwithangiographyinmultivesseldiseasepatient
AT albuquerquedenilsoncamposde clinicaloutcomesandcosteffectivenessanalysisofffrcomparedwithangiographyinmultivesseldiseasepatient
_version_ 1756382107698987008