Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease and abnormal fractional flow reserve.

BACKGROUND

The Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) 2 trial demonstrated a significant reduction in subsequent coronary revascularization among patients with stable angina and at least 1 coronary lesion with a fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 who were randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with best medical therapy. The economic and quality-of-life implications of PCI in the setting of an abnormal fractional flow reserve are unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We calculated the cost of the index hospitalization based on initial resource use and follow-up costs based on Medicare reimbursements. We assessed patient utility using the EQ-5D health survey with US weights at baseline and 1 month and projected quality-adjusted life-years assuming a linear decline over 3 years in the 1-month utility improvements. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio based on cumulative costs over 12 months. Initial costs were significantly higher for PCI in the setting of an abnormal fractional flow reserve than with medical therapy ($9927 versus $3900, P<0.001), but the $6027 difference narrowed over 1-year follow-up to $2883 (P<0.001), mostly because of the cost of subsequent revascularization procedures. Patient utility was improved more at 1 month with PCI than with medical therapy (0.054 versus 0.001 units, P<0.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PCI was $36 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which was robust in bootstrap replications and in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

PCI of coronary lesions with reduced fractional flow reserve improves outcomes and appears economically attractive compared with best medical therapy among patients with stable angina.