Key result
Invasive coronary physiology indices effectively guide tailored revascularization and targeted medical therapy.
Why the study?
Technical and clinical conditions potentially biasing functional coronary evaluation continue to fuel debates regarding the strategy of choice for guiding PCI and medical therapy.
The review highlights the shift from anatomical to functional assessment of coronary lesions using indices like FFR, iFR, and CFR to guide PCI and optimize patient outcomes.
May support physiology-guided PCI decisions; leaves open optimal index selection for specific populations.
Recent evidence on ischemia, rather than coronary artery disease (CAD), representing a major determinant of outcomes, has led to a progressive shift in the management of patients with ischemic heart disease. According to most recent guidelines, myocardial revascularization strategies based on anatomical findings should be progressively abandoned in favor of functional criteria for the guidance of PCI. Thus, emerging importance has been assigned to the assessment of coronary physiology in order to determine the ischemic significance of coronary stenoses. However, despite several indexes and tools that have been developed so far, the existence of technical and clinical conditions potentially biasing the functional evaluation of the coronary tree still cause debates regarding the strategy of choice. The present review provides an overview of the available methods and the most recent acquirements for the invasive assessment of ischemia, focusing on the most widely available indexes, fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instant-wave free ratio (iFR), in addition to emerging examples, as new approaches to coronary flow reserve (CFR) and microvascular resistance, aiming at promoting the knowledge and application of those "full physiology" principles, which are generally advocated to allow a tailored treatment and the achievement of the largest prognostic benefits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Verdoia et al. (2023) conducted a review in Ischemic heart disease. Coronary physiology assessment (FFR, iFR, CFR, IMR) vs. Anatomical/angiographic assessment was evaluated. Invasive assessment of coronary physiology using indices like FFR, iFR, and CFR provides functional evaluation of coronary stenoses to guide tailored revascularization and medical therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: