Use of fractional flow reserve versus stress perfusion scintigraphy after unstable angina: Effect on duration of hospitalization, cost, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcome

Abstract

ObjectivesThe present study sought to determine the value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) compared with stress perfusion scintigraphy (SPS) in patients with recent unstable angina/non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI). BackgroundFractional flow reserve, an invasive index of stenosis severity, is a reliable surrogate for SPS in patients with normal left ventricular function. An FFR ≥0.75 can distinguish patients after myocardial infarction (MI) with a positive SPS from those with a negative SPS. However, the use of FFR has not been investigated after UA/NSTEMI. MethodsSeventy patients who had recent UA/NSTEMI and an intermediate single-vessel stenosis were randomized to either SPS (n = 35) or FFR (n = 35). Patients in the SPS group were discharged if the SPS revealed no ischemia, whereas those in the FFR group were discharged if the FFR was ≥0.75. Patients with a positive SPS and those with an FFR <0.75 underwent percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. ResultsThe use of FFR markedly reduced the duration and cost of hospitalization compared with SPS (11 ± 2 h vs. 49 ± 5 h [−77%], p < 0.001; and $1,329 ± $44 vs. $2,113 ± $120, respectively, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in procedure time, radiation exposure time, or event rates during follow-up, including death, MI, or revascularization. ConclusionsThese data indicate that: 1) the use of FFR in patients with recent UA/NSTEMI markedly reduces the duration and cost of hospitalization compared with SPS; and 2) these benefits are not associated with an increase in procedure time, radiation exposure time, or clinical event rates.