Why the study?
Does CTCA with selective FFRCT reduce costs or improve clinical outcomes compared to standard of care in patients with stable chest pain?
Does CTCA with selective FFRCT reduce costs or improve clinical outcomes compared to standard of care in patients with stable chest pain?
While CTCA with FFRCT does not significantly reduce overall costs compared to standard care at 9 months, it safely reduces the need for invasive coronary angiography in patients with stable chest pain.
This editorial refers to ‘Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography coronary angiography in the assessment and management of stable chest pain: the FORECAST randomized trial’, by N. Curzen et al., doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab444. First devised as an invasive measurement of the clinical relevance of coronary artery stenosis, fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become widely utilized for identifying coronary lesions in need of revascularization at the time of invasive coronary angiography (ICA).1 European guidelines recommend pressure wire-based FFR or instantaneous wave-free ratio measurements before revascularization, especially when prior testing for myocardial ischaemia is either inconclusive or unavailable.2 Indeed, FFR is the gold standard test to tell us whether a coronary atherosclerotic lesion is haemodynamically significant. This is achieved by measuring the ratio of the coronary artery pressure distal to the lesion divided by the coronary pressure proximal to the lesion (or at the aortic root), under maximal hyperaemic...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Antoniades et al. (2021) conducted an editorial in stable chest pain (n=1,400). CTCA with FFRCT vs. standard of care was evaluated on cost over 9 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: