Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Treatment for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Prespecified Analysis of the FRAME-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Complete revascularization by non-infarct-related artery (IRA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction is standard practice to improve patient prognosis. However, it is unclear whether a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided or angiography-guided treatment strategy for non-IRA PCI would be more cost-effective. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prespecified cost-effectiveness analysis of the FRAME-AMI randomized clinical trial, patients were randomly allocated to either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions between August 19, 2016, and December 24, 2020. Patients were aged 19 years or older, had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI and underwent successful primary or urgent PCI, and had at least 1 non-IRA lesion (diameter stenosis >50% in a major epicardial coronary artery or major side branch with a vessel diameter of ≥2.0 mm). Data analysis was performed on August 27, 2023. Intervention: Fractional flow reserve-guided vs angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The model simulated death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Future medical costs and benefits were discounted by 4.5% per year. The main outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of FFR-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. State-transition Markov models were applied to the Korean, US, and European health care systems using medical cost (presented in US dollars), utilities data, and transition probabilities from meta-analysis of previous trials. Results: The FRAME-AMI trial randomized 562 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (11.4) years. Most patients were men (474 [84.3%]). Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI increased QALYs by 0.06 compared with angiography-guided PCI. The total cumulative cost per patient was estimated as $1208 less for FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI. The ICER was -$19 484 and the INB was $3378, indicating that FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed consistent results and the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness in FFR-guided PCI was 97%. When transition probabilities from the pairwise meta-analysis of the FLOWER-MI and FRAME-AMI trials were used, FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI in the Korean, US, and European health care systems, with an INB of $3910, $8557, and $2210, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness with FFR-guided PCI was 85%, 82%, and 31% for the Korean, US, and European health care systems, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that FFR-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions saved medical costs and increased quality of life better than angiography-guided PCI for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI should be considered in determining the treatment strategy for non-IRA stenoses in these patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02715518.

QFR Assessment and Prognosis After Nonculprit PCI in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization using either angiography-guided or fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy can improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, there is concern that angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may result in un-necessary PCI of the non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA), and its long-term prognosis is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes after non-IRA PCI according to the quantitative flow ratio (QFR). METHODS: We performed post hoc QFR analysis of non-IRA lesions of AMI patients enrolled in the FRAME-AMI (FFR Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of AMI With Multivessel Disease) trial, which randomly allocated 562 patients into either FFR-guided PCI (FFR ≤0.80) or angiography-guided PCI (diameter stenosis >50%) for non-IRA lesions. Patients were classified by non-IRA QFR values into the QFR ≤0.80 and QFR >0.80 groups. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 443 patients (552 lesions) were eligible for QFR analysis. Of 209 patients in the angiography-guided PCI group, 30.0% (n = 60) underwent non-IRA PCI despite having QFR >0.80 in the non-IRA. Conversely, only 2.7% (n = 4) among 209 patients in the FFR-guided PCI group had QFR >0.80 in the non-IRA. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the rate of MACEs was significantly higher among patients with non-IRA PCI despite QFR >0.80 than in patients with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions (12.9% vs 3.1%; HR: 4.13; 95% CI: 1.10-15.57; P = 0.036). Non-IRA PCI despite QFR >0.80 was associated with a higher risk of non-IRA MACEs than patients with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions (12.9% vs 2.1%; HR: 5.44; 95% CI: 1.13-26.19; P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: In AMI patients with multivessel disease, 30.0% of angiography-guided PCI resulted in un-necessary PCI for the non-IRA with QFR >0.80, which was significantly associated with an increased risk of MACEs than in those with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions. (FFR Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of AMI With Multivessel Disease [FRAME-AMI] ClinicalTrials.gov number; NCT02715518).

Post-PCI Risk Assessment by Inflammation Activity According to Disease Acuity and Time from Procedure.

BACKGROUND: High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) has been proposed as an indicator of inflammation and cardiovascular risk. However, little is known of the comparative temporal profile of hs-CRP and its relation to outcomes according to the disease acuity. METHODS: We enrolled 4,263 East Asian patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stable disease. hs-CRP was measured at baseline and 1 month post-PCI. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: the composite occurrence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and major bleeding were followed up to 4 years. RESULT: The AMI group (n = 2,376; 55.7%) had higher hs-CRPbaseline than the non-AMI group (n = 1,887; 44.3%) (median: 1.5 vs. 1.0 mg/L; p < 0.001), which remained higher at 1 month post-PCI (median: 1.0 vs. 0.9 mg/L; p = 0.001). During 1 month, a high inflammatory-risk phenotype (upper tertile: hs-CRPbaseline ≥ 2.4 mg/L) was associated with a greater MACE in the AMI group (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj]: 7.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.29-25.59; p < 0.001), but not in the non-AMI group (HRadj: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.12-4.40; p = 0.736). Between 1 month and 4 years, a high inflammatory-risk phenotype (upper tertile: hs-CRP1 month ≥ 1.6 mg/L) was associated with greater MACE compared to the other phenotype in both the AMI (HRadj: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.73-3.45; p < 0.001) and non-AMI groups (HRadj: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.80-3.94; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: AMI patients have greater inflammation during the early and late phases than non-AMI patients. Risk phenotype of hs-CRPbaseline correlates with 1-month outcomes only in AMI patients. However, the prognostic implications of this risk phenotype appears similar during the late phase, irrespective of the disease acuity.

Cost implications of adverse drug event-related emergency department visits - a multicenter study in South Korea.

Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) increase health-care resource utilization, including that for emergency department (ED) visits. However, cost analyses of ADRs resulting in ED visits are scarce. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the direct medical costs before and after ADR occurrence and analyzed the cost-driving factors.Methods: The ADR cases were identified by a retrospective review of medical records of patients who visited the ED of three tertiary hospitals in South Korea from July to December 2014. The direct medical cost was estimated by the difference in costs six months before and after the ED visit. A generalized linear model was used to identify the ADR-associated cost-driving factors.Results: The mean cost per ADR increased by 26.1% (±SD = 4.3) during the six-month follow-up compared with that during the six months before the ED visit (p < 0.05). Preventable ADRs accounted for approximately 19.9% of the cost increase among all ADR cases. The regression analysis revealed that 'ADR-related hospitalization' was a significant (p < 0.05) factor leading to an increase in the direct medical costs.Conclusion: Drug-related ED visits increase the burden on health insurance systems and patients' out-of-pocket costs, mostly due to the hospitalization costs.

Direct costs of severe cutaneous adverse reactions in a tertiary hospital in Korea.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: There are only a few reports on the direct costs of severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), including drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), despite the tremendous negative impact these reactions can have on patients. We estimated the direct costs of treating SCARs. METHODS: Patients admitted to a tertiary teaching hospital for the treatment of SCARs from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2010 were included. Patients who had experienced SCARs during their admission for other medical conditions were excluded. The direct costs of hospitalization and outpatient department visits were collected. Inpatient and outpatient care costs were calculated, and factors affecting inpatient care costs were analyzed. RESULTS: The total healthcare cost for the management of 73 SCAR patients (36 with DRESS, 21 with SJS, and 16 with TEN) was 752,067 US dollars (USD). Most of the costs were spent on inpatient care (703,832 USD). The median inpatient care cost per person was 3,720 (range, 1,133 to 107,490) USD for DRESS, 4,457 (range, 1,224 to 21,428) USD for SJS, and 8,061 (range, 1,127 to 52,220) USD for TEN. Longer hospitalization significantly increased the inpatient care costs of the patients with DRESS (by 428 USD [range, 395 to 461] per day). Longer hospitalization and death significantly increased the inpatient care costs of the patients with SJS/TEN (179 USD [range, 148 to 210] per day and an additional 14,425 USD [range, 9,513 to 19,337] for the deceased). CONCLUSION: The management of SCARs required considerable direct medical costs. SCARs are not only a health problem but also a significant financial burden for the affected individuals.