ArticleJACC. Advances2022
Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Based Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable and Unstable Angina.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness Matters! FFR Versus IVUS-Guided PCI in Modern Clinical Practice: Insights From the FLAVOUR Trial.Korean circulation journal · 2025Article
- Comparison between Imaging and Physiology in Guiding Coronary Revascularization: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Coronary Physiology Assessment: On Becoming Faster, Friendlier, and a Better Guiding Companion.JACC. Asia · 2023Article
- Article
- Less Money, Less Problems: Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.JACC. Advances · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are limited studies on the cost-effectiveness of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-based percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over angiography-based PCI. Objectives: The current study sought to evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness of FFR-based PCI compared to angiography-based PCI. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a nationwide cohort that consisted of patients with stable or unstable angina from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) and Health Insurance Review and Assessment (HIRA) database in Korea. The cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed by using a decision and Markov model with key values from the United States and the United Kingdom health care systems. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), an indicator of incremental cost on additional quality-adjusted life-years gained by FFR-based PCI, was evaluated. Results: In the NHIS-HIRA data, FFR-based PCI was used during the index PCI in 5,116 patients (3.8%) among 134,613 eligible patients. FFR-based PCI showed significantly lower risk of all-cause death (5.8% vs 7.7%, Conclusions: In the current cohort, FFR-based PCI was associated with higher quality of life at a lower cost than angiography-based PCI. FFR-based PCI was cost-effective in patients with stable or unstable angina undergoing PCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.