We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
1-Year Outcomes of FFRCT-Guided Care in Patients With Suspected Coronary Disease: The PLATFORM Study.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2016 August 3
BACKGROUND: Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) plus estimation of fractional flow reserve using CTA (FFRCT) safely and effectively guides initial care over 90 days in patients with stable chest pain. Longer-term outcomes are unknown.
OBJECTIVES: The study sought to determine the 1-year clinical, economic, and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes of using FFRCT instead of usual care.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with stable, new onset chest pain were managed by either usual testing (n = 287) or CTA (n = 297) with selective FFRCT (submitted in 201, analyzed in 177); 581 of 584 (99.5%) completed 1-year follow-up. Endpoints were adjudicated major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization), total medical costs, and QOL.
RESULTS: Patients averaged 61 years of age with a mean 49% pre-test probability of coronary artery disease. At 1 year, MACE events were infrequent, with 2 in each arm of the planned invasive group and 1 in the planned noninvasive cohort (usual care strategy). In the planned invasive stratum, mean costs were 33% lower with CTA and selective FFRCT ($8,127 vs. $12,145 usual care; p < 0.0001); in the planned noninvasive stratum, mean costs did not differ when using an FFRCT cost weight of zero ($3,049 FFRCT vs. $2,579; p = 0.82), but were higher when using an FFRCT cost weight equal to CTA. QOL scores improved overall at 1 year (p < 0.001), with similar improvements in both groups, apart from the 5-item EuroQOL scale scores in the noninvasive stratum (mean change of 0.12 for FFRCT vs. 0.07 for usual care; p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable chest pain and planned invasive coronary angiography, care guided by CTA and selective FFRCT was associated with equivalent clinical outcomes and QOL, and lower costs, compared with usual care over 1-year follow-up. (The PLATFORM Study: Prospective LongitudinAl Trial of FFRct: Outcome and Resource IMpacts [PLATFORM]; NCT01943903).
OBJECTIVES: The study sought to determine the 1-year clinical, economic, and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes of using FFRCT instead of usual care.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with stable, new onset chest pain were managed by either usual testing (n = 287) or CTA (n = 297) with selective FFRCT (submitted in 201, analyzed in 177); 581 of 584 (99.5%) completed 1-year follow-up. Endpoints were adjudicated major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization), total medical costs, and QOL.
RESULTS: Patients averaged 61 years of age with a mean 49% pre-test probability of coronary artery disease. At 1 year, MACE events were infrequent, with 2 in each arm of the planned invasive group and 1 in the planned noninvasive cohort (usual care strategy). In the planned invasive stratum, mean costs were 33% lower with CTA and selective FFRCT ($8,127 vs. $12,145 usual care; p < 0.0001); in the planned noninvasive stratum, mean costs did not differ when using an FFRCT cost weight of zero ($3,049 FFRCT vs. $2,579; p = 0.82), but were higher when using an FFRCT cost weight equal to CTA. QOL scores improved overall at 1 year (p < 0.001), with similar improvements in both groups, apart from the 5-item EuroQOL scale scores in the noninvasive stratum (mean change of 0.12 for FFRCT vs. 0.07 for usual care; p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable chest pain and planned invasive coronary angiography, care guided by CTA and selective FFRCT was associated with equivalent clinical outcomes and QOL, and lower costs, compared with usual care over 1-year follow-up. (The PLATFORM Study: Prospective LongitudinAl Trial of FFRct: Outcome and Resource IMpacts [PLATFORM]; NCT01943903).
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app