The authors acknowledge the need to compare outcomes between patients with and without post-PCI FFR measurements to improve the generalizability of their findings.
We thank Dr Uretsky et al for suggesting to check for potential differences in baseline characteristics and-more importantly-in outcome between patients with and patients without post-percutaneous coronary intervention fractional flow reserve (post-PCI FFR) measurements. It is indeed likely that procedural characteristics, not captured by the case record form, may have influenced the operator to decide to perform or not to perform the final FFR measurements. Checking for these differences in outcome might increase the generalizability of the conclusions. We will therefore perform this analysis in the near future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piróth et al. (2017) reported a letter.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More on Percutaneous coronary interventionMore from Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions