CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Impact of epicardial adipose tissue on cardiovascular haemodynamics, metabolic profile, and prognosis in heart failure Management of left main disease: an update Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Do We Have the Evidence? Successful bailout stenting strategy against lethal coronary dissection involving left main bifurcation Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention. P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy with Clopidogrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Discrepancies in Measurement of the Thoracic Aorta: JACC Review Topic of the Week Role of intravascular ultrasound in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention Health Status After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis

Clinical Trial2017 Nov 2 [Epub ahead of print]

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Three-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 2 Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation)

Fearon WF, Nishi T, FAME 2 Trial Investigators Keywords: angiography; coronary artery disease; fractional flow reserve, myocardial; percutaneous coronary intervention; stents

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Previous studies found that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve outcome compared with medical therapy (MT) in patients with stable coronary artery disease, but PCI was guided by angiography alone. FAME 2 trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) compared PCI guided by fractional flow reserve with best MT in patients with stable coronary artery disease to assess clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.


METHODS - A total of 888 patients with stable single-vessel or multivessel coronary artery disease with reduced fractional flow reserve were randomly assigned to PCI plus MT (n=447) or MT alone (n=441). Major adverse cardiac events included death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization. Costs were calculated on the basis of resource use and Medicare reimbursement rates. Changes in quality-adjusted life-years were assessed with utilities determined by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions health survey at baseline and over follow-up.


RESULTS - Major adverse cardiac events at 3 years were significantly lower in the PCI group compared with the MT group (10.1% versus 22.0%; P<0.001), primarily as a result of a lower rate of urgent revascularization (4.3% versus 17.2%; P<0.001). Death and myocardial infarction were numerically lower in the PCI group (8.3% versus 10.4%; P=0.28). Angina was significantly less severe in the PCI group at all follow-up points to 3 years. Mean initial costs were higher in the PCI group ($9944 versus $4440; P<0.001) but by 3 years were similar between the 2 groups ($16 792 versus $16 737; P=0.94). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCI compared with MT was $17 300 per quality-adjusted life-year at 2 years and $1600 per quality-adjusted life-year at 3 years. The above findings were robust in sensitivity analyses.


CONCLUSIONS - PCI of lesions with reduced fractional flow reserve improves long-term outcome and is economically attractive compared with MT alone in patients with stable coronary artery disease.


CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION : URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01132495.