English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The relative merit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of stable ischemic heart disease remains a debated issue. Clinical trials that have relied mostly on a visual estimate of angiographic stenosis severity for subject selection have failed to demonstrate a clinical benefit for PCI when compared with guideline-directed medical therapy alone. Meanwhile, studies using a measure of coronary physiology, the fractional flow reserve (FFR), have not only confirmed a benefit for PCI in treatment of lesions assessed as hemodynamically significant (FFR≤0.80) but also shown the potential for unnecessary PCI and associated harm using a visual angiography-guided strategy. Indeed, the discordance between visual estimates and FFR is 65% for lesions judged to have 50% to 70% diameter stenosis and 20% even for those lesions judged to have 70% to 90% diameter stenosis. On the basis of available data, current consensus guidelines in the United States and Europe recommend FFR-guided PCI as class IIa and I indications, respectively. Likewise, the appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization endorsed by multiple cardiovascular societies incorporate FFR measurements for assessment of borderline lesions.

Do You See What I See? Time for a Standardized Approach to Angiography-Based Decision Making