Why the study?
Coronary physiology remains underused with persistent knowledge gaps and heterogeneity across functional assessment protocols in ACS and CCS.
This review summarizes the current evidence and protocols for the invasive functional assessment of coronary physiology across the spectrum of acute and chronic coronary syndromes.
Acute and Chronic Coronary Syndromes represent two major medical challenges and are the leading cause of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. While Chronic Coronary Syndrome (CCS) can be defined as the whole group of structural and/or functional abnormalities involving coronary arteries before and after an acute event, Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) encompasses the condition of acute myocardial ischemia (with or without consequent myocardial injury and troponin release) due to dynamic mechanisms such as athero-thrombosis or vasospasm. Because of this complex interplay between structural and functional mechanisms arising from both the epicardial and microvascular compartments, a comprehensive approach to fully investigate the whole spectrum of coronary disease is therefore essential. To address this issue, the invasive functional assessment has evolved through the years, from a way to guide revascularization to a meticulous protocol for characterizing ischemia-leading mechanisms and stratifying prognosis both in ACS and CCS. However, coronary physiology remains underused in clinical practice, and multiple gaps in knowledge still exist; on top of this, there is increasing heterogeneity regarding how to perform functional assessment, with different protocols proposed by various centers. The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence in the field of coronary physiology, and to discuss how and when to use it at its best.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Benvenuto et al. (2026) conducted a review in Patients with chronic coronary syndrome including stable coronary artery disease and intermediate coronary stenosis undergoing invasive physiological assessment. Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. Angiography-guided PCI or optimal medical therapy alone was evaluated on Composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned revascularization or urgent revascularization depending on study (In FAME trial, FFR-guided PCI associated with lower incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and repeated revascularizations compared to angiography-guided PCI; in FAME 2, significant reduction in urgent revascularizations leading to early termination; in FAME 3, no difference in composite of death, MI, stroke between FFR-guided PCI and CABG at 5 years, but higher rate of repeated revascularizations and MI in PCI group).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: