Key result
Physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease using pressure and flow, particularly via positron emission tomography, offers a fundamental shift from traditional anatomically guided management.
This review highlights the clinical prominence of physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease over traditional anatomic severity.
May guide more selective revascularization in CAD; leaves open best physiologic tool to improve outcomes versus angiography.
Angiographic severity of coronary artery stenosis has historically been the primary guide to revascularization or medical management of coronary artery disease. However, physiologic severity defined by coronary pressure and/or flow has resurged into clinical prominence as a potential, fundamental change from anatomically to physiologically guided management. This review addresses clinical coronary physiology-pressure and flow-as clinical tools for treating patients. We clarify the basic concepts that hold true for whatever technology measures coronary physiology directly and reliably, here focusing on positron emission tomography and its interplay with intracoronary measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gould et al. (2013) conducted a review in Coronary Artery Disease. Physiologic assessment (PET and intracoronary measurements) vs. Anatomic assessment (angiography) was evaluated. Physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease using pressure and flow, particularly via positron emission tomography, offers a fundamental shift from traditional anatomically guided management.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: