How good are experienced interventional cardiologists at predicting the functional significance of intermediate or equivocal left main coronary artery stenoses?

BackgroundDecisions for coronary revascularisation are frequently based on visual assessment of the severity of a stenosis. In patients with intermediate left main stem lesions clinical decision making based on FFR is safe and feasible. This study was performed to assess the accuracy of visual angiographic assessment of intermediate or equivocal left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenoses by experienced interventional cardiologists when taking fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements as the gold standard.MethodsFifty-one patients with intermediate (40–80% diameter stenosis by angiography) or equivocal LMCA disease were evaluated by FFR. Angiograms were then reviewed by 4 experienced interventionalists from different university hospitals blinded to FFR results. Lesions were visually assessed and their significance classified as ‘significant’, ‘not significant’, or ‘unsure’ if the observer was unable to make a decision regarding lesion significance based on the angiogram.ResultsResults were compared with two different FFR cutoff values (< 0.75 and ≤ 0.80) for hemodynamic significance. The 4 reviewers achieved correct lesion classification in no more than approximately 50% of cases each, regardless of FFR threshold. The interobserver agreement between two reviewers in excess of the agreement expected due to chance was outperformed on average by only 16%. Furthermore, interobserver variability was large resulting in unanimously correct lesion classification in only 29% of all cases.ConclusionsThe functional significance of intermediate and equivocal LMCA stenoses should not be based solely on angiographic assessment even by experienced interventional cardiologists.