Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Three-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 2 Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation)

BACKGROUND:Previous studies found that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve outcome compared with medical therapy (MT) in patients with stable coronary artery disease, but PCI was guided by angiography alone. FAME 2 trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) compared PCI guided by fractional flow reserve with best MT in patients with stable coronary artery disease to assess clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. METHODS:A total of 888 patients with stable single-vessel or multivessel coronary artery disease with reduced fractional flow reserve were randomly assigned to PCI plus MT (n=447) or MT alone (n=441). Major adverse cardiac events included death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization. Costs were calculated on the basis of resource use and Medicare reimbursement rates. Changes in quality-adjusted life-years were assessed with utilities determined by the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions health survey at baseline and over follow-up. RESULTS:Major adverse cardiac events at 3 years were significantly lower in the PCI group compared with the MT group (10.1% versus 22.0%; P