Arq. Bras. Cardiol. 2019; 112(1): 48-49

Analysis of FFR Measurement Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness Compared to Angiography In Multi-Arterial Patients Undergoing PCI

Fernando Mendes Sant'Anna , Lucas Bonacossa Sant'Anna

DOI: 10.5935/abc.20180261

This Short Editorial is referred by the Research article "Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient".

The study by Quintella et al. published in this issue of the journal, brings us valuable information about the use of an important physiological evaluation tool in the hemodynamic laboratory. FFR-guided treatment (myocardial fractional flow reserve), used in the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation in multi-arterial patients treated in the Unified Health System (SUS) has been shown to be useful in decreasing the incidence of new revascularization of the target vessel (clinical restenosis), as well as being cost-effective when compared to the angiography-guided treatment.

The value of FFR to predict major adverse cardiovascular events (MCAEs) prior to PCIs has been established for many years. Its ability to detect ischemia and, with this, to guide the most appropriate treatment, has undergone the test of time, and passed. The 15-year follow-up of the DEFER study in single-vessel patients, and the 5-year studies, FAME 1, and FAME 2, in multiarterial patients, showed consistent and unquestionable results, with a better, or at least similar, clinical progression, in the FFR-guided groups, using less stents with fewer lesions and consequently lower costs, as well as evidenced the safety of leaving lesions whose FFR was not indicative of ischemia only on drug treatment.

[…]