Coronary artery disease management and cost implications with fractional flow reserve guided coronary intervention in Indian patients with stable ischemic coronary artery disease

Clinical Outcomes of a Non-Compliant Balloon Dilatation Catheter: MOZEC™ NC Study

The present study sought to assess the clinical outcomes of the Mozec™ Non-compliant (NC) Rx PTCA balloon dilatation catheter (BDC) (Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Vapi, India) for dilatation of coronary lesions. This was a post-marketing, single-centre, single-arm, retrospective study. In total, 57 patients who had undergone post-dilatation with the Mozec™ NC Rx PTCA balloon dilatation catheter were evaluated. The primary endpoint was procedural success defined as (i) successful delivery of the investigational device to and across the target lesion; (ii) successful inflation, deflation, and withdrawal of the investigational device; (iii) absence of vessel perforation, flow-limiting vessel dissection, increase in thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow from baseline, clinically significant arrhythmia requiring medical treatment; and (iv) achievement of final TIMI flow grade 3 after percutaneous coronary intervention of the target lesion after single or multiple attempts to cross the target lesion. Procedural success was achieved in 57 (100%) patients. There were no incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE)/target lesion failure (TLF). Mozec™ NC Rx PTCA balloon dilatation catheter has demonstrated favourable outcomes for the dilatation of routine and complex coronary lesions in a small cohort, as evidenced by its 100% procedural success rate and absence of MACE.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Based Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable and Unstable Angina

Background

There are limited studies on the cost-effectiveness of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-based percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over angiography-based PCI.

Objectives

The current study sought to evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness of FFR-based PCI compared to angiography-based PCI.

Methods

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a nationwide cohort that consisted of patients with stable or unstable angina from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) and Health Insurance Review and Assessment (HIRA) database in Korea. The cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed by using a decision and Markov model with key values from the United States and the United Kingdom health care systems. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), an indicator of incremental cost on additional quality-adjusted life-years gained by FFR-based PCI, was evaluated.

Results

In the NHIS-HIRA data, FFR-based PCI was used during the index PCI in 5,116 patients (3.8%) among 134,613 eligible patients. FFR-based PCI showed significantly lower risk of all-cause death (5.8% vs 7.7%, P = 0.001) and spontaneous myocardial infarction (1.6% vs 2.2%, P = 0.022) than the angiography-based PCI at 4 years. In the NHIS-HIRA data, FFR-based PCI gained 0.039 quality-adjusted life-years at a lower cost ($303) than angiography-based PCI, yielding an ICER of -$7,748 during the 4-year follow-up. FFR-based PCI was dominant in the health care system of Korea (ICER = -$7,309), United States (ICER = -$31,267), and United Kingdom (ICER = -$1,341) during a 10-year time horizon. These results were consistently shown in probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

In the current cohort, FFR-based PCI was associated with higher quality of life at a lower cost than angiography-based PCI. FFR-based PCI was cost-effective in patients with stable or unstable angina undergoing PCI.