Page 231 - Read Online

Van der Merwe et al. Vessel Plus 2019;3:24 I http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1209.2019.17 Page 7 of 9

CONCLUSION
Various studies now confirm that physiological revascularization by FFR-guided CABG result in fewer
target lesions and improved conduit patency in the short term. Even though intermediate follow-up
results suggest no significant difference in clinical outcomes compared to angiography-guided CABG, the
risk that angiographic significant/FFR insignificant lesions may progress to detrimental clinical events
are of greatest concern. Current evidence therefor does not support the routine use of FFR in CABG
planning. The current CABG procedure recommendation of complete angiographic- and total arterial
revascularization with minimal aorta manipulation should remain the standard until future studies clarify
[25]
the role of FFR in long term CABG outcomes . Non-invasive CAD diagnostic modalities are rapidly
developing and may offer exciting alternatives to FFR in planning CABG target lesions. The diagnostic-,
shared decision-making-, informed consent- and therapeutic practices related to CAD treatment are sure
to evolve with CABG to remain an invaluable- and excellent option.

DECLARATIONS
Authors’ contributions
Read and agreed to the manuscript as written: Van der Merwe J, Casselman F

Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.

Financial support and sponsorship
None.

Conflicts of interest
All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.

Consent for publication
Not applicable.

Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019.

REFERENCES
1. Ahmadi A, Kini A, Narula J. Discordance between ischemia and stenosis, or PINSS and NIPSS: are we ready for new vocabulary?
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8:111-4.
2. Johnson NP, Kirkeeide RL, Gould KL. Coronary anatomy to predict physiology: fundamental limits. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging
2013;6:817-32.
3. Kern MJ, Samady H. Current concepts of integrated coronary physiology in the catheterization laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol
2010;55:173-85.
4. Pijls NH, van Son JA, Kirkeeide RL, De Bruyne B, Gould KL. Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial,
and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing functional stenosis severity before and after percutaneous
transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation 1993;87:1354-67.
5. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, Van Der Voort PH, Bonnier HJ, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional
severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1703-08.
6. Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, Boersma E, Bech JW, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally
nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow- up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:2105-11.
7. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert V, Ikeno F, et al. Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography for guiding percutaneous