Coronary artery disease management and cost implications with fractional flow reserve guided coronary intervention in Indian patients with stable ischemic coronary artery disease. Issue 5 (15th April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Thomson, Viji S.; Varghese, Mithun J.; Chacko, Sujith T.; Varghese, Lijo; Alex, Anoop G.; George, Paul V.; George, Oommen K.; Joseph, George; Yadav, Bijesh K.; John, Jacob
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 97:Issue 5(2021)
• Page Start: 815
• Page End: 824
• Publication Date: 2020-04-15
• Subjects: cost–benefit analysis -- fractional flow reserve -- percutaneous coronary intervention -- revascularization; Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28897
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: To study the safety of stent avoidance, frequency of change in management decisions, and its cost implications while using a fractional flow reserve (FFR)‐guided treatment strategy for intermediate‐grade coronary artery stenosis. Background: The impact of FFR in guiding management decisions and its cost implications has not been studied after imposition of a ceiling on stent prices by the Government of India. Methods: In 400 patients with 477 intermediate‐grade coronary lesions for whom coronary intervention was planned, functional assessment using FFR was done. Incidence of the primary composite endpoint (major adverse cardiac event [MACE], cardiac death, myocardial infarction, objective evidence of ischemia, and target vessel revascularization) in the stent avoided subset was compared with the stented group at follow‐up. Micro‐costing analysis was done using a computed model with current stent and FFR wire prices. Results: The overall incidence of MACE was 4.9%, 0.9% in the stent‐avoided subset and 6.9% in stented group ( p = 0.04, comparing the latter two) at a median follow‐up of 21 months (interquartile range 12–31 months). Serious adverse events occurred only in 1% of patients receiving adenosine. The average cost saving was Indian rupees (INR) 51, 847 [United States Dollar (USD) 746] per patient, resulting in total savings of INR 15, 813, 379 (USD 227, 530). Cost savings persisted but were lower by 36% (INR 18, 613/USD 268 per patient) after the ceiling of stent prices. Conclusion: FFR‐guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy is safe and cost‐effective in countries where majority of patients self‐finance their health care, resulting in stent and PCI avoidance in approximately one in three patients referred for coronary angioplasty.