Back to overview

Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decision-making.

Type of publication Peer-reviewed
Publikationsform Review article (peer-reviewed)
Publication date 2013
Author Gould K Lance, Johnson Nils P, Bateman Timothy M, Beanlands Rob S, Bengel Frank M, Bober Robert, Camici Paolo G, Cerqueira Manuel D, Chow Benjamin J W, Di Carli Marcelo F, Dorbala Sharmila, Gewirtz Henry, Gropler Robert J, Kaufmann Philipp A, Knaapen Paul, Knuuti Juhani, Merhige Michael E, Rentrop K Peter, Ruddy Terrence D, Schelbert Heinrich R, Schindler Thomas H, Schwaiger Markus, Sdringola Stefano, Vitarello John, Williams Kim A,
Project Entwicklung einer neuen Hybrid-Bildgebungs-Methode zur nicht invasiven kardialen Diagnostik
Show all

Review article (peer-reviewed)

Journal Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume (Issue) 62(18)
Page(s) 1639 - 53
Title of proceedings Journal of the American College of Cardiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.076


Angiographic severity of coronary artery stenosis has historically been the primary guide to revascularization or medical management of coronary artery disease. However, physiologic severity defined by coronary pressure and/or flow has resurged into clinical prominence as a potential, fundamental change from anatomically to physiologically guided management. This review addresses clinical coronary physiology-pressure and flow-as clinical tools for treating patients. We clarify the basic concepts that hold true for whatever technology measures coronary physiology directly and reliably, here focusing on positron emission tomography and its interplay with intracoronary measurements.