Why the study?
The use of coronary physiology in chronic coronary syndromes is highly variable and the evidence base complex, with novel non-invasive methods now supplementing traditional invasive tests.
Does coronary physiology testing improve clinical outcomes in patients with chronic coronary syndromes compared to anatomical assessment alone?
Does coronary physiology testing improve clinical outcomes in patients with chronic coronary syndromes compared to anatomical assessment alone?
Anatomical assessment of atheroma burden provides superior prognostic information and guides management as effectively as physiological assessment of ischemia in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndromes.
Use of coronary physiology testing remains highly variable; leaves open optimal integration of non-invasive modalities in chronic coronary syndromes.
The use of coronary physiology in patients with chronic coronary syndromes is highly variable, and the evidence base complex. Tests of coronary physiology have traditionally been invasive (e.g., fractional flow reserve), but novel non-invasive methods are now available which provide additional anatomical information (e.g., computed tomography-based fractional flow reserve and angiogram-derived physiology). This review summarises the evidence for and against the relative value of these tests for patients being investigated for chest pain that may represent chronic coronary syndromes, and for those triaged to percutaneous coronary intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saunders et al. (2022) conducted a review in Chronic Coronary Syndromes. Coronary physiology testing vs. Anatomical testing was evaluated.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: