10.6084/m9.figshare.7676513.v1 Edgard Freitas Quintella Edgard Freitas Quintella Esmeralci Ferreira Esmeralci Ferreira Vitor Manuel Pereira Azevedo Vitor Manuel Pereira Azevedo Denizar V. Araujo Denizar V. Araujo Fernando Mendes Sant'Anna Fernando Mendes Sant'Anna Bernardo Amorim Bernardo Amorim Denilson Campos de Albuquerque Denilson Campos de Albuquerque Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient SciELO journals 2019 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 2019-02-06 02:45:09 Dataset https://scielo.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Clinical_Outcomes_and_Cost-Effectiveness_Analysis_of_FFR_Compared_with_Angiography_in_Multivessel_Disease_Patient/7676513 <div><p>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.</p></div>