The Use and Efficacy of FFR-CT: Real-World Multicenter Audit of Clinical Data With Cost Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve-computed tomography (FFR-CT) is endorsed by UK and U.S. chest pain guidelines, but its clinical effectiveness and cost benefit in real-world practice are unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to audit the use of FFR-CT in clinical practice against England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and assess its diagnostic accuracy and cost. METHODS: A multicenter audit was undertaken covering the 3 years when FFR-CT was centrally funded in England. For coronary computed tomographic angiograms (CCTAs) submitted for FFR-CT analysis, centers provided data on symptoms, CCTA and FFR-CT findings, and subsequent management. Audit standards included using FFR-CT only in patients with stable chest pain and equivocal stenosis (50%-69%). Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated against invasive FFR, when performed. Follow-up for nonfatal myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality was undertaken. The cost of an FFR-CT strategy was compared to alternative stress imaging pathways using cost analysis modeling. RESULTS: A total of 2,298 CCTAs from 12 centers underwent FFR-CT analysis. Stable chest pain was the main symptom in 77%, and 40% had equivocal stenosis. Positive and negative predictive values of FFR-CT were 49% and 76%, respectively. A total of 46 events (2%) occurred over a mean follow-up period of 17 months; FFR-CT (cutoff: 0.80) was not predictive. The FFR-CT strategy costs £2,102 per patient compared with an average of £1,411 for stress imaging. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria for using FFR-CT were met in three-fourths of patients for symptoms and 40% for stenosis. FFR-CT had a low positive predictive value, making its use potentially more expensive than conventional stress imaging strategies.

Cardiovascular Risk in Men with Prostate Cancer: Insights from the RADICAL PC Study.

PURPOSE: We describe the cardiovascular risk profile in a representative cohort of patients with prostate cancer treated with or without androgen deprivation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively characterized in detail 2,492 consecutive men (mean age 68 years) with prostate cancer (newly diagnosed or with a plan to prescribe androgen deprivation therapy for the first time) from 16 Canadian sites. Cardiovascular risk was estimated by calculating Framingham risk scores. RESULTS: Most men (92%) had new prostate cancer (intermediate risk 41%, high risk 50%). The highest level of education achieved was primary school in 12%. Most (58%) were current or former smokers, 22% had known cardiovascular disease, 16% diabetes, 45% hypertension, 31% body mass index 30 kg/m2 or greater, 24% low levels of physical activity, mean handgrip strength was 37.3 kg and 69% had a Framingham risk score consistent with high cardiovascular risk. Participants in whom androgen deprivation therapy was planned had higher Framingham risk scores than those not intending to receive androgen deprivation therapy, and this risk was abolished after adjustment for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of men with prostate cancer are at high cardiovascular risk. There is a positive association between a plan to use androgen deprivation therapy and baseline cardiovascular risk factors. However, this association is explained by confounding factors.