4.5 Review

Optimising physiological endpoints of percutaneous coronary intervention

Journal

EUROINTERVENTION
Volume 16, Issue 18, Pages E1470-E1483

Publisher

EUROPA EDITION
DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00988

Keywords

clinical trials; fractional flow reserve; stable angina

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [MR/S021108/1]
  2. Imperial College London British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Invasive coronary physiology has become established as an important component in guidelines for managing stable coronary artery disease, improving clinical outcomes and cost efficiency. Despite recent doubts from randomized controlled trials, it remains crucial for selecting patients for coronary revascularization.
Invasive coronary physiology to select patients for coronary revascularisation has become established in contemporary guidelines for the management of stable coronary artery disease. Compared to revascularisation based on angiography alone, the use of coronary physiology has been shown to improve clinical outcomes and cost efficiency. However, recent data from randomised controlled trials have cast doubt upon the value of ischaemia testing to select patients for revascularisation. Importantly, 20-40% of patients have persistence or recurrence of angina after angiographically successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This state-of-the-art review is focused on the transitioning role of invasive coronary physiology from its use as a dichotomous test for ischaemia with fixed cut-points, towards its utility for real-time guidance of PCI to optimise physiological results. We summarise the contemporary evidence base for ischaemia testing in stable coronary artery disease, examine emerging indices which allow advanced physiological guidance of PCI, and discuss the rationale and evidence base for post-PCI physiological assessments to assess the success of revascularisation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available