Why the study?
The prognostic value and economic benefit of coronary angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (caFFR) guided PCI in patients with coronary artery disease needed investigation.
Does a coronary angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (caFFR)-guided strategy reduce MACE and costs compared to an angiography-guided strategy in patients with coronary artery disease?
Does a coronary angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (caFFR)-guided strategy reduce MACE and costs compared to an angiography-guided strategy in patients with coronary artery disease?
caFFR-guided PCI safely reduces the rate of revascularization and associated consumable costs compared to standard angiography guidance in patients with CAD.
caFFR guidance was associated with fewer PCIs and lower costs; leaves open whether RCTs confirm prognostic benefit.
Objective This study aims to investigate the prognostic value and economic benefit of coronary angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (caFFR) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery disease. Methods All patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent coronary angiography in our center between April 2021 and November 2021 were retrospectively enrolled and divided into the caFFR guidance group (n = 160) and angiography guidance group (n = 211). A threshold of caFFR≤0.8 was used for revascularization. Otherwise, delayed PCI was preferred. The patients were prospectively followed up by telephone or outpatient service at six months for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of all-cause death, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. All in-hospital expenses were recorded, including initial hospitalization and re-hospitalization related to MACE. Results There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. There were 2 (1.2%) patients in the caFFR guidance group and 5 (2.4%) patients in the angiography guidance group with MACE events during the following six months. Compared with angiography guidance, caFFR guidance reduced the revascularization rate (63.7% vs. 84.4%, p = 0.000), the average length of stents implanted (0.52 ± 0.88 vs. 1.1 ± 1.4, P < 0.001). The cost of consumables in the caFFR guidance group was significantly lower than that in the angiography guidance group (33257 ± 19595 CNY vs. 38341 ± 16485 CNY, P < 0.05). Conclusion Compared with coronary angiography guidance, caFFR guidance is of great significance in reducing revascularization and cost, which has significant health and economic benefits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: