Letter by Fan and He regarding article, "Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary disease and abnormal fractional flow reserve".

Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease and Abnormal Fractional Flow Reserve

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease and abnormal fractional flow reserve.

BACKGROUND The Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) 2 trial demonstrated a significant reduction in subsequent coronary revascularization among patients with stable angina and at least 1 coronary lesion with a fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 who were randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with best medical therapy. The economic and ...

Noninvasive Measurement of Coronary Fractional Flow Reserve: An Under-exploiting Newland

1695 IntroductIon In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), the most important factors regarding to both symptoms and outcomes are the presence and extent of inducible ischemia.[1] Alleviation of ischemia with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve symptoms and clinical outcomes. Stenting ischemic stenosis result in effective and durable relief of angina pectoris and improve...

Letter by Layland et al regarding article, "Validation of intravascular ultrasound-derived parameters with fractional flow reserve for assessment of coronary stenosis severity".

To the Editor: We read with great interest the study by Kang et al 1 that explored the relationship between intravascular ultrasound parameters and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the assessment of intermediate coronary stenoses. 1 We congratulate the authors, who concluded that lesions with a mean luminal area of Ͻ2.4 mm 2 had a high sensitivity and negative predictive value to predict FFR Ͻ0...

Percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary artery disease: the debate continues.

Patients with significant coronary artery stenoses are at increased risk of future cardiac events. However, in the absence of acute coronary syndrome or recent myocardial infarction and residual ischemia, elective percutaneous coronary intervention has not been shown to improve prognosis. Possible explanations for this might be the limited follow-up time adopted by most randomized trials compar...