“With equal clinical outcomes, the iFR – in not using adenosine and by identifying fewer patients needing referral for coronary artery bypass surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention – had a better cost effectiveness by about $900. That’s pretty good,” commented Dr. Granger, a professor of medicine at Duke University.
“At the moment, there is a longer track record for FFR data than iFR data for outcomes, but this is a fairly strong finding in a large population in a well-conducted study, and it shows very positive favorable economic results,” the cardiologist added. “There is no doubt that this [iFR] does have streamlined work flow, lower cost, and the same outcomes. So I think this is actually quite a positive effect.”
Dr. Patel, in acknowledging that there is a spirited ongoing debate among some interventional cardiologists as to which coronary physiology assessment tool should be used, declared, “We should stop arguing about which one to use and just use more of it, first and foremost.”
“I couldn’t agree more,” Dr. Granger said. “Coronary physiology for best decision making, whichever index you decide to choose, will lead to better outcomes and lower cost.”