You are here

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Review
Opportunities and challenges of implementing computed tomography fractional flow reserve into clinical practice
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

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. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
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: 26 August 2020
    Stress echocardiography a low cost alternative to CTFFR
    • Saad Fyyaz, Cardiology Specialist Registrar Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
    • Other Contributors:
      • Khaled Alfakih, Consultant Cardiologist

    The authors (Nazir et al) of the review of CT fractional flow reserve published in Heart are to be congratulated on very well balanced and well written review of this relatively new technology (1).

    We would like to raise a couple of points regarding imaging stress tests functioning as a gatekeeper to invasive coronary angiography after a stenosis is identified on CTCA. A recent survey of UK cardiologists identified imaging stress tests as the most common approach to assess the functional significance of a moderate stenosis (50-70%) on CTCA, with only 2% electing to use CT-FFR (2). The current increase in the use of CT-FFR is because it is nationally funded. Importantly, stress echocardiography is a very low cost test with a national tariff of £177, which compares favourably with the new reduced tariff for CT-FFR of £530. With time, this may be re-balance in favour of CT-FFR if the tariff drops further, particularly given the attraction of a single patient episode and with an anticipated growth of cardiac CT in line with NICE recommendations.

    It is important to remind readers that the PLATFORM (3) trial compared CTCA plus CT-FFR versus the standard of care in patients with stable chest pain. The patients were divided into an invasive sub-study (n=380) and a non-invasive sub-study (n=204) and the end point of the study was reduction of invasive coronary angiography that showed no obstructive CAD. In the non-invasive sub-study there was no difference in the r...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.