ABSTRACT
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.
Resumo Fundamentos: Em pacientes multiarteriais e lesões moderadas, a reserva de fluxo fracionada (FFR) avalia cada lesão e direciona o tratamento, podendo ser útil no custo-efetividade (CE) de implante de stents não farmacológicos (SNF). Objetivos: Avaliar CE e impacto clínico da angioplastia + FFR versus angioplastia + angiografia (ANGIO), em multiarteriais, utilizando SNF. Métodos: pacientes com doença multiarteriais foram randomizados prospectivamente durante ±5 anos para FFR ou ANGIO, e acompanhados por até 12 meses. Foram avaliados eventos cardíacos maiores (ECAM), reestenose e CE. Resultados: foram incluídos 69 pacientes, 47(68,1%) homens, 34(49,2%) no FFR e 35(50,7%) no ANGIO, idade 62,0 ± 9,0 anos, com angina estável e Síndrome Coronariana Aguda estabilizada. No FFR, havia 26 com doença (76,5%) biarterial e 8 (23,5%) triarterial, e no grupo ANGIO, 24(68,6%) biarteriais e 11(31,4%) triarteriais. Ocorreram 12(17,3%) ECAM - 3(4,3%) óbitos: 2(5,8%) no FFR e 1(2,8%) no ANGIO, 9(13,0%) anginas, 4(11,7%) no FFR e 5(14,2%) no ANGIO, 6 reestenoses: 2(5,8%) no FFR e 4 (11,4%) no ANGIO. Angiografia detectou 87(53,0%) lesões no FFR, 39(23,7%) com ICP e 48(29,3%) com tratamento clínico; e 77(47,0%) lesões no ANGIO, todas submetidas à angioplastia. Quanto aos stents, registrou-se 39(33,3%) (0,45 ± 0,50 stents/lesão) no FFR e 78(66,6%) (1,05 ± 0,22 stents/lesão) no ANGIO (p = 0,0001); ANGIO utilizou 51,4% a mais que o FFR. Análise de CE revelou um custo de R$5045,97 e R$5.430,60 nos grupos ANGIO e FFR, respectivamente. A diferença de efetividade foi 1,82%. Conclusões: FFR diminuiu o número de lesões tratadas e de stents e necessidade de revascularização do vaso-alvo, com CE comparável ao da angiografia.