title: Change in angiogram-derived management strategy of patients with chest pain when some FFR data are available: How consistent is the effect?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The assessment of patients presenting with angina using invasive angiography alone is imperfect. By contrast, fractional flow reserve (FFR) allows for assessment of lesion-specific ischemia, which is predictive of clinical outcome. A series of studies has demonstrated that the availability of FFR data at the time of diagnostic angiography leads to significant differences in the management of those patients.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The objective of this paper is to assess the consistency in the difference in management resulting from an FFR-directed versus and angiogram-directed strategy in appropriate observational and randomized trials.
  
  
  METHODS
  A methodical search was made using MEDLINE, Current Contents Connect, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Cochrane library, PubMed, Science Direct, and Web of Science.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Eight studies were identified using the eligibility criteria. A total of 2468 patients were recommended to have optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone after initial angiographic assessment but, after FFR results were available, a total of 716 (29.0%) were referred for revascularization (PCI 626 patients [25.36%]; CABG 90 patients [3.64%]). Similarly, 3766 patients were originally committed to PCI after initial angiography: of these 1454 patients (38.61%) were reconsidered to be suitable for OMT alone and 71 individuals (1.8%) were deemed suitable for CABG after FFR data were available. Further, of 366 patients referred for CABG based on angiographic data, the availability of FFR data changed the final decision to OMT alone in 65 patients (17.76%) and PCI in 51 patients (13.9%). Overall, the angiogram-derived management was changed in 22%-48% of these study populations when FFR data were available.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Some use of FFR during coronary angiography alters the angiogram-directed management in a remarkably consistent manner. These data suggest that routine use of FFR at the diagnostic angiogram would improve patient care.
authors.affiliation: Department of Cardiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
authors.forename: Vinayak
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Nagaraja
authors.affiliation: Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, University of Keele, and Royal Stoke University Hospital, University Hospitals of North Midlands, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
authors.forename: Mamas
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Mamas
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK.
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Mahmoudi
authors.affiliation: HeartFlow, Redwood City, CA, USA.
authors.forename: Campbell
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Rogers
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK; University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK. Electronic address: nick.curzen@uhs.nhs.uk.
authors.forename: Nick
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Curzen
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D002637:Chest Pain / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000209:etiology / Q000628:therapy*; D017023:Coronary Angiography / Q000379:methods; D003324:Coronary Artery Disease / Q000150:complications / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000628:therapy*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D053805:Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D062645:Percutaneous Coronary Intervention / Q000379:methods
keywords: Coronary artery disease; FFR