Authors
Loading...
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“Use of FFR technology represents a rare opportunity in medicine in which an innovative product not only improves clinical outcomes but also saves money.”
“The FAME study provides very compelling evidence that angiographic imaging alone should not be used to triage intermediate lesions. The simple fact that similar-appearing angiographic stenoses can be significant 39% of the time and insignificant 61% of the time (in terms of causing or not causing ischemia) highlights the limitations of the angiogram in making these important clinical and economic decisions. How can you rely only on an angiogram to make a decision to stent or not-stent if the data suggest that you will be wrong either 39% of the time or 61% of the time?”
“Volcano commends the AHA, ACC and SCAI for responding so quickly to new data, like the FAME study, to revise their guidelines on how to best treat patients with severe coronary artery disease. Many medical guidelines are being reviewed and many patients are being told less screening is better. Most recently, scans similar to angiography have been projected to increase the risk of cancer, when done excessively or unnecessarily, as they expose the patient to increased radiation. These new recommendations highlight the benefit of using highly localized therapy guidance technology like FFR to go beyond the limits of angiography and more precisely pinpoint the severity of coronary disease on a lesion-by-lesion basis.”
Kushner et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: