Abstract:The utility of fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable ischemic heart disease is well established, with more than 2 decades of randomized clinical trial (RCT) data demonstrating its clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness. 1 ,2 In the acute myocardial infarction (AMI) population, an FFR-guided complete revascularization strategy is associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with an infarct-related artery (IRA)–only revascularization strategy, but whether FFR is superior to angiography alone to achieve complete revascularization remains unclear. 3 Indeed, the recent Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FLOWER-MI) and Fractional Flow Reserve vs Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non–Infarction-Related Artery Stenosis in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (FRAME-AMI) RCTs comparing FFR-guided PCI vs angiography-guided PCI of non-IRA lesions in patients with AMI and multivessel disease delivered discordant findings. 4 ,5 Although both trials reported significantly less non-IRA PCI and lower stent utilization in the FFR groups, only FRAME-AMI found that FFR guidance was associated with significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, including the individual component outcomes of death and MI. These conflicting results may reflect a few salient differences between the trials: (1) inclusion of patients with non-ST-segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI; FRAME-AMI, 47%; FLOWER-MI, 0), in whom a prognostic benefit was observed compared with those with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and (2) rates of immediate non-IRA PCI during the index IRA PCI catheterization (FRAME-AMI, 60%; FLOWER-MI, 5%). Nevertheless, in light of these discrepant RCT data, a preferred strategy for complete revascularization in AMI has not been established. Given the substantial financial burden associated with AMI hospitalization (fourth most expensive condition treated in the United States in 2017), 6 identifying which strategy provides cost savings without compromising quality of care is critical and may tip the scales. It is within this context we read with great interest the study by Hong and colleagues 7 in this issue of JAMA Network Open . In this prespecified multipronged cost-effectiveness analysis of the Korean multicenter RCT FRAME-AMI, the investigators assessed the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided non-IRA PCI in 562 patients presenting with AMI (47% with STEMI and 53% with NSTEMI) and multivessel disease on both an individual patient level basis as well as across different health care systems (Korea, United States, Europe) using simulated models. Specifically, the authors determined patient-level cost-effectiveness by measuring quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INB) and evaluated cost-effectiveness across health care systems through simulated models using meta-analytic RCT data. Total QALYs represented patient survival time weighted by quality of life as assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) performed at 1 year. ICER was quantified as the difference in cumulative costs divided by the difference in cumulative QALYs. INB was calculated as the difference between incremental QALY multiplied by willingness to pay threshold and incremental cost. Over a time horizon of 4 years, FFR-guided complete revascularization resulted in a gain of 0.06 total QALYs at a lower cost ( 19 484; INB, 3910; United States: INB, 2210). The authors should be congratulated for performing this timely and robust cost-effectiveness analysis that provides important insights into the clinical value of an FFR-guided PCI strategy for non-IRA lesions in AMI. Major strengths of the study included its prespecified nature using RCT data from FRAME-AMI, which minimized unmeasured confounding, and inclusion of patients with NSTEMI to capture the spectrum of AMI. Additionally, the rigorous statistical methods, including both patient-level and simulated model cost-effectiveness analyses, enhanced the robustness and generalizability of the findings. The consistent cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided complete revascularization in AMI across divergent health care systems is particularly noteworthy and may inform future policies. However, a few limitations are important to acknowledge when interpreting this study. First, the calculation of QALY and I -Abstract Truncated-

Cost-Effectiveness of FFR-Guided Complete Revascularization in AMI