Key result
Functional assessment with fractional flow reserve reduces the incidence of new revascularizations in ischemic heart disease, though intracoronary imaging shows greater potential for identifying high-risk vulnerable plaques.
Why the study?
Recent data have questioned the clinical benefits of using coronary function tests to guide revascularization, particularly in acute myocardial infarction, amid the increasing use of intracoronary imaging.
Does functional assessment or intracoronary imaging-guided revascularization improve clinical outcomes compared to angiography-guided PCI or medical therapy in patients with ischemic heart disease?
Does functional assessment or intracoronary imaging-guided revascularization improve clinical outcomes compared to angiography-guided PCI or medical therapy in patients with ischemic heart disease?
While functional assessment is valuable for guiding revascularization and reducing repeat procedures, intracoronary imaging offers superior identification of high-risk vulnerable plaques, supporting a shift toward personalized, imaging-guided intervention.
Over the past three decades, ischaemia research has been the cornerstone of the management and treatment of patients with atherosclerotic CAD. A robust body of evidence, including non-randomized and randomized trials, has supported the use of invasive and non-invasive coronary function tests to guide coronary revascularization. However, more recent data have questioned the clinical benefits of adopting this approach, especially in patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction. The increasing use of intracoronary imaging has identified the morphological features of plaques at higher risk of causing subsequent acute coronary events, despite the fact that they were not obstructive at the time of the index investigation. However, although functional assessment does not appear to have the same potential for identifying high-risk plaques as imaging modalities, it offers the simplicity and reproducibility of plaque assessment as a unique advantage. Furthermore, the ideal approach for the treatment of the so-called vulnerable plaques is still far from being identified, while a robust body of evidence supports the role of functionally guided revascularization, especially in stable patients. Overall, ischaemia research still provides non-negligible information that contributes to a personalized approach to improve patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prati et al. (2025) conducted a review in Ischaemic heart disease. Functional assessment (Fractional flow reserve-guided revascularization) vs. Angiography-guided revascularization or intracoronary imaging was evaluated. Functional assessment with fractional flow reserve reduces the incidence of new revascularizations in ischemic heart disease, though intracoronary imaging shows greater potential for identifying high-risk vulnerable plaques.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: