Feature | February 10, 2010| Habib Samady, M.D.

FFR Draws Increased Interest in the Wake of FAME Study

These results are turning heads and changing minds in the cardiology world.

St. Jude Medicals PressureWire Aeris provides wireless integration of FFR data directly into the GE Healthcare Mac-Lab hemodynamic recording system.

Editor’s note: Dr. Samady is an associate professor of medicine, division of cardiology,
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta. He wrote the following commentary on his experience with FFR and its impact on patient care.

Since the results of the FAME study were published in January 2009, cardiologists have begun warming up to fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a diagnostic tool. The data presented from FAME (FFR vs. Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) , compared the outcomes of 1,005 patients 12 months after percutaneous intervention for multivessel coronary artery disease based on either FFR measurement or angiography alone.

The FAME data demonstrates improved clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes for the patient group that underwent FFR. The FFR method correlated with a 30 percent reduction in major adverse cardiac events after one year — and it lowered the per-patient cost of PCI by an average of $675 without lengthening the procedure.

These results are turning heads and changing minds in the cardiology world. Many doctors who once shied away from FFR, including some fellows and colleagues at Emory, are now starting to ask questions about the technique. As this increased interest leads to increased use, more cardiologists are recognizing the value of FFR as a tool for evaluating the functional severity of coronary stenosis prior to PCI.

FFR involves inserting a coronary pressure guidewire into an artery to measure blood flow, which allows physicians to determine whether any apparent narrowing is severe enough to merit angioplasty or stenting.

Using FFR as a diagnostic guide, interventional cardiologists can identify and stent lesions that fail to pass a blood-flow threshold, instead of stenting lesions based on angiographic characteristics. FAME shows that FFR allows for better use of stents in patients with clogged arteries, which leads to improved
outcomes. As early adopters and longtime advocates of FFR — the technique has been a part of our diagnostic toolkit. It is fair to say that the findings of the FAME study reflect what previous smaller, non-randomized studies had suggested as well as our clinical experience here at Emory.

The FFR method allows us to plan a course of treatment that is better suited to the severity of a patient’s particular condition. In general, FFR lets cardiologists fine-tune their treatment of heart-disease patients and push the whole pendulum of cardiac care more toward the conservative side — with emphasis on more intense medical therapy.

Occasionally, a patient referred for bypass surgery based on angiography alone, will undergo percutaneous intervention or medical therapy when their condition is evaluated using FFR.

FFR also correlates with a significant reduction in the number of multivessel PCIs performed in our practice. Patients who would have had stents implanted in three vessels based on angiography might end up receiving in only one or two after FFR-guided analysis. Among patients with single-vessel disease, FFR might lead us to recommend medical treatment for cases that would have otherwise received stents.

Since stents comprise the largest cost of cardiac intervention — each stent costs about $2,000 on average — FFR can significantly reduce the cost of care as it lowers the number of stents implanted and the amount of contrast dye used. But the FFR method isn’t meant to simply reduce the number of stents implanted. Stenting is a very valuable and effective procedure in cardiac care, but it is not a silver bullet.
About 30 to 40 percent of FFR procedures identify dangerous arterial narrowings that would have been missed in an angiogram, despite seriously restricting blood flow. When this happens, we will stent or even bypass areas that would have otherwise gone untreated if only angiography had been used to evaluate these patients. The cost of care increases as a result, but our patients receive treatment better tailored to their conditions.

The FAME study found that patients whose treatment was guided by FFR analysis spent less time in the hospital and experienced fewer major adverse cardiac events. All together, the benefits of FFR saved an average of $675 on each patient’s care. Some of the money saved needs to be spent on the coronary pressure guidewire, but that cost is only a fraction of the overall savings.

I used to hear physicians balk at the prospect of adopting FFR, arguing that the coronary pressure guidewire cost too much or that the procedure took too long compared to traditional treatments. The results of the FAME study appeared to have mitigated these complaints significantly.

We have the largest fellowship program in the country at Emory, so our fellows are often a very good barometer of how cardiologists nationwide are reacting to a new development in the field. Since the results of the FAME study came out, more of my experienced colleagues as well as our fellows have started to appreciate the advantages that this technique offers over angiography.

The FAME results have strengthened cardiologists’ interest in FFR by showing how the pressure wire method can improve patient care while cutting costs. It is good for the patient and for the cath lab. It is time for cardiologists to take a closer look at this physiologic technique.

Related Content

Feature | Business| April 28, 2016 | Dave Fornell
 
STEMI, delayed or deferred stent implantation, DANAMI-3-DEFER trial, ACC.16
News | Cath Lab| April 18, 2016
Delayed or deferred stent implantation in patients showed no clinical benefit in patients experiencing the deadliest...
FFR-CT, heartflow
Feature | CT Angiography (CTA)| April 15, 2016 | Jeff Zagoudis
Fractional flow reserve-computed tomography (FFR-CT) is still in the early stages of clinical implementation in the U
Absorb, bioresorbable stents
Feature | Stents Bioresorbable| April 13, 2016 | Dave Fornell
Bioresorbable stents have been one of the hottest new cardiovascular technologies discussed at cardiology meetings ov
Sponsored Content | Videos | Stents Bioresorbable| April 12, 2016
Gregg Stone, M.D., director of cardiovascular research and education at Columbia University Medical Center / New York
Sponsored Content | Videos | CT Angiography (CTA)| April 12, 2016
A discussion on the adoption rate of FFR-CT with Dr. Campbell Rogers, chief medical officer of HeartFlow.
Philips Volcano, iFR outcomes trials, vs FFR, DEFINE-FLAIR, iFR SWEDEHEART, SYNTAX II
News | FFR Catheters| April 05, 2016
April 5, 2016 — Philips announced that a combined total of more than 5,000 patients have been enrolled in three prosp
FFR-CT, HeartFlow, PLATFORM trial, one-year results, ACC 2016
News | CT Angiography (CTA)| April 05, 2016
Novel technology developed by HeartFlow Inc. significantly reduces the need for invasive procedures to diagnose...
Medinol, NIRTRAKS Study, NIRxcell Stent System, first patient

Image courtesy of Medinol

News | Stents| March 24, 2016
March 24, 2016 — Medinol announced the enrollment of their first patient in the U.S. NIRTRAKS Study.
Neovasc, Tiara, transcatheter mitral valve, TMVR

Transcatheter mitral valve technology was among the most popular content on the DAIC website in 2015. Pictured is the Neovasc Tiara transcatheter mitral valve, which is currently in clinical trials.

Feature | March 22, 2016 | Dave Fornell
DAIC readers chose the following stories as the most popular content in 2015, based on website analytics.
Overlay Init