Recent large trials question the impact of percutaneous coronary interventions in improving patients prognosis, such that there is a growing need for methods that assess more precisely which patients and lesions deserve intervention. Methods for the invasive or non-invasive assessment of coronary physiology are well established in clinical routine, and their use is steadily expanding. However, a number of questions still remain. These pertain, among many other, the relative merits of hyperemia-based versus resting indexes, the relationship with imaging methods, the impact of post-PCI hemodynamics, scenarios of complex anatomies (e.g. tandem or diffuse stenosis), the role of the microcirculation, the best strategies to treat microvascular dysfunction, the impact of non-invasive or less-invasive technologies and of medical or interventional therapies on coronary hemodynamics.
This research topic welcomes original research, reviews, clinical case reports which provide address the above mentioned questions.
Recent large trials question the impact of percutaneous coronary interventions in improving patients prognosis, such that there is a growing need for methods that assess more precisely which patients and lesions deserve intervention. Methods for the invasive or non-invasive assessment of coronary physiology are well established in clinical routine, and their use is steadily expanding. However, a number of questions still remain. These pertain, among many other, the relative merits of hyperemia-based versus resting indexes, the relationship with imaging methods, the impact of post-PCI hemodynamics, scenarios of complex anatomies (e.g. tandem or diffuse stenosis), the role of the microcirculation, the best strategies to treat microvascular dysfunction, the impact of non-invasive or less-invasive technologies and of medical or interventional therapies on coronary hemodynamics.
This research topic welcomes original research, reviews, clinical case reports which provide address the above mentioned questions.
