Abstract Background: In clinical practice management of patients with intermediate coronary artery disease efficiently without costing a lot of money has a value to this therapeutic dilemma, especially in patients presented to the catheterization laboratory without prior functional assessment. Methods: A decision model to compare between the cost of FFR-guided coronary interventions and angiographically-guided interventions was done. Intermediate coronary lesions in each patient were assessed twice by using the 2 methods leading to 2 decisions for each patient. A comparison between the costs of the 2 decisions was held. Results: FFR-guided coronary intervention saved 63 stents in 122 lesions in 50 patients. The estimated cost of FFR-guided strategy per patient ranged from 25.000 Egyptian pound (EP) to 45.000 EP with mean value of 26.860+4.500. Whereas the estimated cost of coronary angiography guided strategy per patient ranged from 15.000 EP to 61.000 EP with mean value of 31.740+12.960. Conclusion: Measuring FFR is cost-effective in chronic stable angina especially in diabetic patients with multi-vessel disease.
Shawky, A., Mosa, A., & kandil, N. (2024). Fractional Flow Reserve: Cost-effectiveness to guide Coronary Interventions in Chronic Stable Angina. Zagazig University Medical Journal, 30(1.1), 210-217. doi: 10.21608/zumj.2021.64039.2145
MLA
Ahmed Shawky; Ahmed Mosa; nader talat kandil. "Fractional Flow Reserve: Cost-effectiveness to guide Coronary Interventions in Chronic Stable Angina", Zagazig University Medical Journal, 30, 1.1, 2024, 210-217. doi: 10.21608/zumj.2021.64039.2145
HARVARD
Shawky, A., Mosa, A., kandil, N. (2024). 'Fractional Flow Reserve: Cost-effectiveness to guide Coronary Interventions in Chronic Stable Angina', Zagazig University Medical Journal, 30(1.1), pp. 210-217. doi: 10.21608/zumj.2021.64039.2145
VANCOUVER
Shawky, A., Mosa, A., kandil, N. Fractional Flow Reserve: Cost-effectiveness to guide Coronary Interventions in Chronic Stable Angina. Zagazig University Medical Journal, 2024; 30(1.1): 210-217. doi: 10.21608/zumj.2021.64039.2145