March 12, 2018 — Philips announced health economic results from the DEFINE FLAIR clinical trial comparing cost-effectiveness between instant wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the guidance of treatment of ischemic heart disease at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) annual meeting, March 10–12, 2018, in Orlando, Fla. The clinical study found that an iFR-guided strategy offers a one-year average cost savings of $896 per patient compared to an FFR-guided strategy, while delivering consistent patient outcomes. iFR is a pressure-derived index unique to Philips, allowing a simplified hyperemia-free physiological assessment of coronary blockages.
Coronary artery disease is the most common type of heart disease and is the leading cause of death in the U.S. for men and women. Coronary physiology has become routine in planning coronary revascularization, and DEFINE FLAIR compared using iFR and FFR strategies to guide these types of procedures. With an average saving of nearly $900 per patient per year, the study found that iFR offers a total procedure cost saving of approximately 10 percent per patient over FFR. Additionally, patients treated with the use of an iFR-guided revascularization strategy had fewer coronary artery bypass graft procedures and fewer subsequent revascularizations. Previous data from DEFINE FLAIR released in 2017 found that iFR-guided treatments reduced procedure time by 10 percent versus FFR-guided treatments, while reducing patient discomfort by 90 percent.
"The findings from DEFINE FLAIR continue to demonstrate the benefits of iFR, showing that an iFR-guided treatment offers proven outcomes, reduced costs and procedure time, and enhanced patient comfort compared to FFR," said Manesh Patel, M.D., FACC, FSCAI, Chief of the Division of Cardiology and co-director of the Duke Heart Center at Duke University School of Medicine. "iFR is not only a faster diagnostic solution, but it also offers the advantage of significantly reduced patient discomfort. By implementing an iFR program at a hospital, this solution can deliver the clinical outcome benefits of physiology-driven PCI, while reducing annual healthcare costs significantly across the organization."
Watch a VIDEO interview with Patel at ACC.18.
In the treatment of coronary artery disease, clinicians have been using FFR in addition to angiographic images to assess the physiology of a suspected blockage in coronary arteries in order to identify the appropriate therapy for each patient. iFR is a next-generation physiologic measurement that uses the same pressure guidewires and equipment as FFR, but avoids the administration of hyperemic agents, which are required with FFR, to the patients.
DEFINE FLAIR is a randomized, controlled, single-blinded comparison of clinical outcomes and cost efficiencies of iFR and FFR-guided interventions of 2,492 patients in 49 centers across Europe, Asia, North America and Africa. The study conducted its comparison of iFR versus FFR using pressure guide wires and equipment from Philips.
For more information: www.usa.philips.com/healthcare
VIDEO: iFR Equal to FFR Outcomes in Coronary Lesion Evaluation
Easier to Use iFR Equal to Outcomes of FFR in Coronary Lesion Evaluation
 Coronary Artery Disease, NIH, 2015
 Davies JE, et al., DEFINE-FLAIR: A Multi- Centre, Prospective, International, Randomized, Blinded Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Cost Efficiencies of iFR and FFR Decision-Making for Physiological Guided Coronary Revascularization. New England Journal of Medicine, epub March 18, 2017