Fractional flow reserve at 2013: an update.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become an extremely valuable tool for assessing the hemodynamic significance of intermediate coronary lesions in patients with stable coronary syndromes. This manuscript delineates the current data supporting FFR use to guide cardiovascular interventions in comparison to other invasive and non-invasive modalities. The correlation between FFR, symptom severity and likelihood of future major cardiovascular events are critically examined in view of the FAME-2 study results. The authors delineate the scientific gaps, potential pitfalls and misconceptions related to FFR with regards to current and emerging indications. Described are the most important developments related to FFR in 2012: instantaneous wave free ratio and non-invasive CT angiography based FFR. The manuscript proposes areas of future research to enhance the scientific data supporting current FFR clinical algorithms and strategies.

Dual antiplatelet therapy for primary and secondary prevention.

The concomitant use of aspirin and an ADP receptor (P2Y12) blocker, also known as dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), has been extensively investigated as a primary and secondary prevention strategy in an effort to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. In this manuscript the authors review the current guideline recommendations for DAPT and discuss the scientific data that supports these recommendations. Reported are also the scientific knowledge gaps and how future studies are likely to delineate these issues. Incremental knowledge is not likely to be an alternative to individualized care provided by the astute clinician to his patient. In consideration for prescribing DAPT (drug, dosage and duration) the clinician will have to weigh the potential benefits (reduction in death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) and risks (severe or life-threatening bleeding) for each and every patient.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR): changing the practice of interventional cardiology.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become an extremely valuable tool for assessing the hemodynamic significance of intermediate coronary lesions. This manuscript delineates the current guidelines regarding the use of FFR and discusses emerging indications for the use of this diagnostic tool and how they compare with and complement non-invasive or other invasive diagnostic modalities. The manuscript addresses some of the key unanswered questions related to FFR, the potential pitfalls of this tool and discusses future directions of use and research.

Emerging oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) warfarin has been the mainstay therapy for stroke prevention. In recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) oral direct thrombin inhibitor (Dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitors (Rivaroxaban and Apixaban) challenged the efficacy and safety benchmarks set by warfarin. These drugs boast a rapid onset of action, shorter half-life and fewer drug and dietary interactions. Moreover, these new anticoagulants do not require monitoring, titration or dose adjustments. These agents have already been approved for prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with AF. Uncertainty regarding suitability, efficacy and safety in certain patient subsets and issues related to the ability effectively monitor the pharmacodynamic effects and reverse the therapeutic effects of these drugs should be addressed as we engage in a widespread use of these agents in various patient subsets.

Routine stress testing after percutaneous coronary interventions.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the most frequently performed cardiovascular procedure. Many physicians caring for post-PCI patients have routinely subjected patients to periodic stress testing. In the recent years, due to widespread use of drug eluting stents the combined rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and in-stent restenosis (ISR) dropped <10% in the initial 12 months post-PCI, with only half of these patients bearing symptoms. This has translated into reduced pre-test probability of post-PCI ischemia. Consequently, the beneficial effect of this practice came into question. Moreover, in addition to its financial implications, routine post-PCI stress testing may carry potential harm: medication or exercise induced arrhythmia, infarction and/or death, patient irradiation exposure, false-positive tests resulting in excessive invasive testing or interventions, and the illusion of "wellness" in the face of a somewhat unpredictable disease. This review addresses the role stress testing post-PCI: it is concluded that routine stress testing in clinically stable asymptomatic post-PCI patients should be discouraged. Selective utilization of stress testing in patients with exceptionally high risk of ISR or MACE can be utilized to answer important clinical questions or guide and refine clinical care.

Aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular morbidity.

Aspirin (ASA) use for secondary prevention in patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease is well established through its beneficial effects on the reduction of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and CV mortality. This beneficial effect of ASA seems to consistently outweigh the risk in most patient subsets. Current guidelines endorse ASA for primary prevention of CV events in adults who are at moderate-high risk of CV morbidity. Recent emerging data on the efficacy and safety of ASA conflicts with former randomized clinical trials and raises concerns regarding the validity of these recommendations. The following manuscript describes the data emerging from contemporary trials regarding the efficacy and safety of ASA in various patient subsets. The authors propose certain strategies to enhance safety and efficacy in order to augment the beneficial effects of ASA along with other modalities of primary prevention for suitable candidates. When contemplating ASA prescription for primary prevention of CV events, physicians should carefully weigh the potential benefits of risk reduction versus likelihood of harm, mostly related to bleeding complications.