Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The training of interventional cardiologists (ICs), non-interventional cardiologists (NICs) and cardiac surgeons (CSs) differs, and this may be reflected in their interpretation of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and management plan. Availability of systematic coronary physiology might result in more homogeneous interpretation and management strategy compared with ICA alone. METHODS: 150 coronary angiograms from patients with stable chest pain were presented independently to three NICs, three ICs and three CSs. By consensus, each group graded (1) coronary disease severity and (2) management plan, using options: (a) optimal medical therapy alone, (b) percutaneous coronary intervention, (c) coronary artery bypass graft or (d) more investigation required. Each group was then provided with fractional flow reserve (FFR) from all major vessels and asked to repeat the analysis. RESULTS: There was only 'fair' level of agreement of management plan among ICs, NICs and CSs (kappa 0.351, 95% CI 0.295-0.408, p<0.001) based on ICA alone (complete agreement in 35% of cases), which almost doubled to 'good' level (kappa 0.635, 95% CI 0.572-0.697, p<0.001) when comprehensive FFR was available (complete agreement in 66% of cases). Overall, the consensus management plan changed in 36.7%, 52% and 37.3% of cases for ICs, NICs and CSs, respectively, when FFR data were available. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ICA alone, the availability of systematic FFR of all major coronary arteries produced a significantly more concordant interpretation and more homogeneous management plan among IC, NIC and CS specialists. Comprehensive physiological assessment may be of value in routine care for Heart Team decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01070771.