European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on October 24, 2007
European Heart Journal 2007 28(23):2951-2952; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm463
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recurrent angina and the problem of inadequate/inappropriate revascularization: reply
University of Turin
Turin, Italy
Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Pauley Heart Center
Richmond VA, USA
Antwerp Cardiovascular Institute Middelheim AZ Middelheim
Antwerp, Belgium
University of Virginia
Charlottesville VA, USA
Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Pauley Heart Center
Richmond VA, USA
Tel: +1 804 6281215 Fax: +1 840 6281215 E-mail address: gvetrovec{at}mcvh-vcu.edu
We thank Drs Gori and Fineschi for their interest in our work and the opportunity to engage in a scholarly discussion focusing on recurrent angina after coronary revascularization, which indeed is still a major clinical challenge.1
They clarify that anginal status and non-invasive imaging tests may not be enough to guide revascularization strategies in order to correctly identify inadequately revascularized patients, yet avoiding inappropriate revascularizations. In this setting, other invasive tests such as intracoronary ultrasound (ICUS) and measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) have established roles. Nonetheless, ICUS and FFR, while useful, are also far from perfect. A recent systematic review of 21 studies concluded that there is only moderate concordance between FFR and the reference non-invasive imaging tests which, despite their limitations, were used to establish its clinical role.2 Actually, FFR had 76% sensitivity and 76% specificity in comparison to imaging studies.
Moreover, there is incomplete correlation between ICUS and FFR, as Takagi et al.3 reported that differences in ICUS minimal lumen area explain only 62% of the variability in FFR measurements.
Thus, clinical decision can be helped by non-invasive or invasive tests, but most complex decisions still rely on comprehensive clinical judgement. Nonetheless, appropriate supportive diagnostic tools should certainly be encouraged to resolve equivocal or uncertain circumstances.
References
- Abbate A, Biondi-Zoccai GG, Agostoni P, Lipinski MJ, Vetrovec GW. Recurrent angina after coronary revascularization: a clinical challenge. Eur Heart J (2007) 28:1057–1065.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Christou MA, Siontis GC, Katritsis DG, Ioannidis JP. Meta-analysis of fractional flow reserve versus quantitative coronary angiography and noninvasive imaging for evaluation of myocardial ischemia. Am J Cardiol (2007) 99:450–456.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Takagi A, Tsurumi Y, Ishii Y, Suzuki K, Kawana M, Kasanuki H. Clinical potential of intravascular ultrasound for physiological assessment of coronary stenosis: relationship between quantitative ultrasound tomography and pressure-derived fractional flow reserve. Circulation (1999) 100:250–255.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||