4.3 Article

Improving the Quality of Percutaneous Revascularisation in Patients with Multivessel Disease in Australia: Cost-Effectiveness, Public Health Implications, and Budget Impact of FFR-Guided PCI

Journal

HEART LUNG AND CIRCULATION
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages 527-533

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2013.12.009

Keywords

Coronary artery disease; Flow reserve; Cost-benefit analysis; Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); Multivessel disease

Funding

  1. St. Jude Medical

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Cross Mark The international multicentre FAME Study (n=1,005) demonstrated significant health benefits for patients undergoing multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement compared with angiography guidance alone (ANGIO). We determined the cost-effectiveness and the public health/budget impact for Australia. Methods We performed a prospective economic evaluation comparing FFR vs. ANGIO in patients with multivessel disease based on original patient-level FAME data. We used Australian utilities (EQ-5D) and costs to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness adopting the societal perspective. The public health and budget impact from the payer's perspective was based on Australian PCI registries. Uncertainty was explored using deterministic sensitivity analyses and the bootstrap method (n=5,000 samples). Results The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that FFR was cost-saving and reduces costs by 1,776 AUD per patient during one year. Over a two-year time horizon, the public health impact ranged from 7.8 to 73.9 QALYs gained and the budget impact from 1.8 to 14.5 million AUD total cost savings. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that FFR was cost-saving over a wide range of assumptions. Conclusions FFR-guided PCI in patients with multivessel coronary disease substantially reduces cardiac events, improves QALYs and is cost-saving in the Australian health care system.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available