Current Use of Fractional Flow Reserve: A Nationwide Survey

Major medical society guidelines recommend the measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) as an aid in choosing percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease. We investigated the measurement of FFR among interventionalists, analyzing operators'' attributes and decision-making processes to reveal differences in their applications of FFR and the reasons for those differences. An electronic survey study of 1,089 interventionalists was performed from 2 February through 6 March 2012, yielding 255 responses. Most respondents were >45 years old (58%), worked primarily in a community hospital (59%), and performed 10 to 30 cases per month (52%). More than half (145/253, 57%) used FFR measurement in less than one third of cases, and 39 of 253 (15%) never used it. There were no differences in use of FFR by age, practice location, or angiogram volume (P >0.05 for all). Respondents used FFR measurement more frequently than intravascular ultrasonography (73% vs 60%) to help guide the decision to stent (P <0.01). Operators reported that their primary reasons for not using FFR were lack of availability (47%) and problems with reimbursement (39%). There was no difference in FFR use by operator age, practice setting, or case volume.     

Left ventricular volume reduction surgery in the middle East

Heart transplantation is not yet socially acceptable in the Middle East, and left ventricular assist facilities are not generally available in this region. Therefore, left ventricular volume reduction surgery was attempted in 41 patients with end-stage heart failure (33 males; median age, 36.3 years) in 4 Middle Eastern tertiary referral centers between February 1996 and January 2001. Heart failure was due to idiopathic cardiomyopathy in 21 patients, ischemia in 11, rheumatic valvular disease in 8, and viral myocarditis in 1. Associated procedures were aortic valve replacement in 5 patients, mitral valve repair in 25, mitral valve replacement in 7, tricuspid valve repair in 6, and coronary bypass grafting in 8. Hospital mortality was 31.7%. Five patients were lost to follow-up. The survival rate of hospital survivors at 18 months was 65.2%. Three of the surviving patients did not benefit from the operation. Although our results were somewhat disappointing, this operation remains an option for surgeons working in developing areas of the world. It is hoped that better patient selection and new techniques of left ventricular volume reduction that avoid resection of viable muscle will further improve the outcome of this operation.