Response to Letters Regarding Article, “Comparison of Clinical Interpretation With Visual Assessment and Quantitative Coronary Angiography in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Contemporary Practice: The Assessing Angiography (A2) Project”
Brahmajee K. NallamothuJohn A. SpertusAlexandra J. LanskyDavid J. CohenPhilip G. JonesFaraz KureshiGregory DehmerJoseph P. DrozdaMary Norine WalshJohn E. BrushGerald KoenigThad F. WaitesD. Scott GanttGeorge KichuraRichard A. ChazalPeter K. O’BrienC. Michael ValentineJohn S. RumsfeldJohan H. C. ReiberJoann G. ElmoreRichard A. KrumholzW. Douglas WeaverHarlan M. Krumholz
Design
Editorial
Key expert perspectives
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“I'm not sure if turning an interventional cardiologist into a 'human QCA machine' is necessarily the answer. I think the real opportunity is to understand why and when discrepancies may occur that would change clinical decision making and outcomes.”
“[Clinicians] can sometimes be in isolated silos. You get into your own practice and you're doing cases, and there's not really a lot of opportunity for feedback or review.”
Implication
This response emphasizes the continued reliance on visual assessment of angiograms in contemporary practice and argues that quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) can serve as an educational feedback tool to improve visual interpretation skills, despite its known limitations.
Abstract
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
Discussion
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cite This Study
Nallamothu et al. (2013) studied this question.