Literature DB >> 29097450

Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Three-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 2 Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation).

William F Fearon1, Takeshi Nishi2, Bernard De Bruyne3, Derek B Boothroyd4, Emanuele Barbato3,5, Pim Tonino6, Peter Jüni7, Nico H J Pijls6, Mark A Hlatky2,8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies found that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve outcome compared with medical therapy (MT) in patients with stable coronary artery disease, but PCI was guided by angiography alone. FAME 2 trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) compared PCI guided by fractional flow reserve with best MT in patients with stable coronary artery disease to assess clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
METHODS: A total of 888 patients with stable single-vessel or multivessel coronary artery disease with reduced fractional flow reserve were randomly assigned to PCI plus MT (n=447) or MT alone (n=441). Major adverse cardiac events included death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization. Costs were calculated on the basis of resource use and Medicare reimbursement rates. Changes in quality-adjusted life-years were assessed with utilities determined by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions health survey at baseline and over follow-up.
RESULTS: Major adverse cardiac events at 3 years were significantly lower in the PCI group compared with the MT group (10.1% versus 22.0%; P<0.001), primarily as a result of a lower rate of urgent revascularization (4.3% versus 17.2%; P<0.001). Death and myocardial infarction were numerically lower in the PCI group (8.3% versus 10.4%; P=0.28). Angina was significantly less severe in the PCI group at all follow-up points to 3 years. Mean initial costs were higher in the PCI group ($9944 versus $4440; P<0.001) but by 3 years were similar between the 2 groups ($16 792 versus $16 737; P=0.94). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCI compared with MT was $17 300 per quality-adjusted life-year at 2 years and $1600 per quality-adjusted life-year at 3 years. The above findings were robust in sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: PCI of lesions with reduced fractional flow reserve improves long-term outcome and is economically attractive compared with MT alone in patients with stable coronary artery disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01132495.
© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  angiography; coronary artery disease; fractional flow reserve, myocardial; percutaneous coronary intervention; stents

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29097450     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.031907

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  45 in total

1.  Intravenous nicorandil versus adenosine for fractional flow reserve measurement: a crossover, randomized study.

Authors:  Takeshi Nishi; Hideki Kitahara; Yoshihide Fujimoto; Takashi Nakayama; Kengo Nagashima; Hideki Hanaoka; Yoshio Kobayashi
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Fractional flow reserve at the crossroad between revascularization and medical therapy.

Authors:  Carlos Collet; Patrick W Serruys
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2018-08

3.  [Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina pectoris : Objective randomised blinded investigation with optimal medical therapy of angioplasty in stable angina (ORBITA) trial].

Authors:  C Kugler; J Wöhrle; S Nitschmann
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 0.743

4.  Evaluation of fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina: can CT compete with angiography?

Authors:  Xin Liu; Yabin Wang; Heye Zhang; Youbing Yin; Kunlin Cao; Zhifan Gao; Huafeng Liu; William Kongto Hau; Lei Gao; Yundai Chen; Feng Cao; Wenhua Huang
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Assessment of coronary physiology - the evidence and implications.

Authors:  Noman Ali; Peysh A Patel; Christopher J Malkin
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.659

Review 6.  Physiological Assessment of Coronary Lesions in 2020.

Authors:  Mohsin Chowdhury; Eric A Osborn
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2020-01-15

Review 7.  ORBITA: What Goes Around, Comes Around… Or Does It?

Authors:  Matthew Jackson; Azfar Zaman
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2018-09

8.  An EAPCI Expert Consensus Document on Ischaemia with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries in Collaboration with European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Coronary Pathophysiology & Microcirculation Endorsed by Coronary Vasomotor Disorders International Study Group.

Authors:  Vijay Kunadian; Alaide Chieffo; Paolo G Camici; Colin Berry; Javier Escaned; Angela H E M Maas; Eva Prescott; Nicole Karam; Yolande Appelman; Chiara Fraccaro; Gill Louise Buchanan; Stephane Manzo-Silberman; Rasha Al-Lamee; Evelyn Regar; Alexandra Lansky; J Dawn Abbott; Lina Badimon; Dirk J Duncker; Roxana Mehran; Davide Capodanno; Andreas Baumbach
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 29.983

9.  Applicability of quantitative flow ratio for rapid evaluation of intermediate coronary stenosis: comparison with instantaneous wave-free ratio in clinical practice.

Authors:  Masahiro Watarai; Masato Otsuka; Kyoichiro Yazaki; Yusuke Inagaki; Mitsuru Kahata; Asako Kumagai; Koji Inoue; Hiroshi Koganei; Kenji Enta; Yasuhiro Ishii
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2019-06-26       Impact factor: 2.357

10.  Comparison of diagnostic performance between quantitative flow ratio, non-hyperemic pressure indices and fractional flow reserve.

Authors:  Ojas Hrakesh Mehta; Michael Hay; Ren Yik Lim; Abdul Rahman Ihdayhid; Michael Michail; Jun Michael Zhang; James D Cameron; Dennis T L Wong
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2020-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.