BackgroundIn 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).ObjectivesTo evaluate CE and clinical impact of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided
angioplasty (ANGIO) in multivessel patients using NPS.MethodsMultivessel 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.ResultsWe 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%.ConclusionFFR reduced the number of lesions treated and stents, and the need for
target-lesion revascularization, with a CE comparable with that of
angiography.