Iranian Heart Journal

Iranian Heart Journal

Cost-effective Analysis of the Fractional Flow Reserve in an Iranian Cohort With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Hooman Bakhshandeh 1
Feridoun Noohi 2
Parham Sadeghipour 2
Sadaf Esfahani 2
Hossein Ali Basiri 2
Ali Zahedmehr 2
Omid Shafe 2
Ahmad Tashakori Behesht 2
Sanam Alilou 3
Zahra Behroozifar 2
Hamid Sedigh 2
Jamal Moosavi 2
1 Rajaie Cardiovascular, Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran.
2 Cardiovascular Intervention Research Center, Rajaie Cardiovascular, Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran.
3 Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran.
Abstract
Background: The fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has proven effective in decreasing cardiac events by comparison with all-comers stenting. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this method in an Iranian population.
 
Methods: In this prospective cohort, patients with moderate stenosis (50%–70% severity) were included, while those with acute coronary syndrome were excluded. The patients were divided into 2 groups: the FFR group, for whom revascularization was performed based on FFR results, and the control group, for whom revascularization was performed based on the interventionist’s assessment. An FFR of less than 0.80 was considered ischemic in this investigation.
 
Results: A total of 188 patients with moderate coronary artery lesions scheduled for elective PCI were included: 98 patients were assigned to the FFR group and 90 to the control group. Readmission and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were decreased significantly in the FFR group (24.4% vs 11.2%; P = 0.017 and 25.6% vs 12.2%; P = 0.019, respectively). The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) value was improved in the FFR group in comparison with the control group (0.8643 ± 0.0961 vs 0.7449 ± 0.10139, respectively; P < 0.001), resulting in a lower cost for each QALY in the FFR group than in the control group (131 395 349 QALY/rials vs 210 666 667 QALY/rials, respectively; P < 0.001). Additionally, our calculation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that the cost-effectiveness of the FFR utilization was at least 409 million rials and at most 431 million rials for each QALY, depending on the inclusion of the cost of the FFR catheter.
 
Conclusions: Our results demonstrated the effectiveness of FFR in diminishing MACE. The method was cost-effective according to various calculation methods in an Iranian population. (Iranian Heart Journal 2020; 21(3): 64-72)
Keywords
Percutaneous coronary intervention
Fractional flow reserve
Cost-effectiveness
  1. Katritsis DG, Ioannidis JP. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus conservative therapy in nonacute coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2005;111(22):2906-12.
  2. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. The New England journal of medicine. 2007;356(15):1503-16.
  3. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van' t Veer M, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. The New England journal of medicine. 2009;360(3):213-24.
  4. Omidi N, Kashani BS, Piranfar MA, Khorgami MR, Yekta BG, Omidi H. The correlation of diastolic dysfunction with TIMI frame count in patients with chronic stable angina pectoris. Tehran University Medical Journal. 2012;70(9).
  5. Quintella EF, Ferreira E, Azevedo VMP, Araujo DV, Sant'Anna FM, Amorim B, et al. Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient. Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia. 2019;112(1):40-7.
  6. Aarnoudse WH, Botman KJ, Pijls NH. False-negative myocardial scintigraphy in balanced three-vessel disease, revealed by coronary pressure measurement. International journal of cardiovascular interventions. 2003;5(2):67-71.
  7. Pijls NH. Optimum guidance of complex PCI by coronary pressure measurement. Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2004;90(9):1085-93.
  8. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, Barbato E, Tonino PA, Piroth Z, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. The New England journal of medicine. 2012;367(11):991-1001.
  9. Siebert U, Arvandi M, Gothe RM, Bornschein B, Eccleston D, Walters DL, et al. Improving the quality of percutaneous revascularisation in patients with multivessel disease in Australia: cost-effectiveness, public health implications, and budget impact of FFR-guided PCI. Heart, lung & circulation. 2014;23(6):527-33.
  10. Sengottuvelu G, Chakravarthy B, Rajendran R, Ravi S. Clinical usefulness and cost effectiveness of fractional flow reserve among Indian patients (FIND study). Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. 2016;88(5):E139-e44.
  11. Lima RS, Watson DD, Goode AR, Siadaty MS, Ragosta M, Beller GA, et al. Incremental value of combined perfusion and function over perfusion alone by gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of severe three-vessel coronary artery disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2003;42(1):64-70.
  12. Di Serafino L, De Bruyne B, Mangiacapra F, Bartunek J, Agostoni P, Vanderheyden M, et al. Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve- versus angio-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with intermediate stenosis of coronary artery bypass grafts. American heart journal. 2013;166(1):110-8.
  13. Zhang D, Lv S, Song X, Yuan F, Xu F, Zhang M, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis. Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2015;101(6):455-62.
  14. Fearon WF, Nishi T, De Bruyne B, Boothroyd DB, Barbato E, Tonino P, et al. 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). Circulation. 2018;137(5):480-7.
  15. Fearon WF, Bornschein B, Tonino PA, Gothe RM, Bruyne BD, Pijls NH, et al. Economic evaluation of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease. Circulation. 2010;122(24):2545-50.
Iranian Heart Journal
Volume 21, Issue 3
Summer 2020
Pages 55-63