Original article
Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    • Inigo Lozano, Interventional Cardiology
    • Other Contributors:
      • Ramon Lopez-Palop

    We have read with great interest the article written by Zhang et al[1] and we want to congratulate the authors on his contribution in this relevant issue. Since the first publication in 1995 by Pijls et al, fractional flow reserve has constantly progressed with undoubted success. After initially being validated as alternative to the non-invasive tests, the DEFER trial showed that a strategy of PCI based in FFR achieves b...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    The role of FFR in clinical practice

    Only recently the FAME-2 trial1 showed for the first time that, in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) and "significant" myocardial ischemia, there is a prognostic advantage of PCI over optimal medical therapy (OMT), and that this advantage is consistent in patients with either single or multi-vessel coronary artery disease. The clinical outcome of patients with coronary stenoses not associated with signi...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.