Cost utility of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease in Brazil

Objective: The fractional flow reserve (FFR) versus angiography for multivessel evaluation (FAME) study has demonstrated that FFR substantially reduces major adverse cardiac events and resource utilization in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. We aimed to assess the cost utility of FFR in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) from the perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS). Design: Patient-level cost-utility analysis along the FAME study. Participants: Multivessel coronary artery disease patients. Intervention: PCI, either guided by FFR or by angiography alone. Setting: The procedure costs were based on the mean amount of unitary resource utilization multiplied by the costs from SUS reimbursement list. The utilities were derived using Brazilian weights for time trade-off European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions. The World Health Organization recommendation based on gross domestic product per capita (international dollars [I$] 35 876/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) was used as willingness-to-pay threshold. Main Outcome Measure: We determined the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) in I$ per QALY gained during the 1-year time horizon. Results: One-year costs were I$ 8931 for the angiography-guided PCI and I$ 8968 for the FFR-guided PCI, resulting in an incremental cost of I$ 37. Effectiveness during 1 year was 0.798 QALYs for angiography-guided PCI and 0.811 for FFR-guided PCI, resulting in an incremental effectiveness of 0.013 QALYs. The base-case ICUR of FFR versus angiography-guided PCI was 2780 I$/QALY. Cost-saving results are achieved with a FFR price reduction of at least 2.2%. Conclusions: Developing countries should give attention to strategies proven to be cost-effective in other health systems. In our analysis, FFR-guided PCI is very cost-effective in the Brazilian SUS and with a minimal price reduction of the device, FFR could be cost saving.