Plaque + Physiology: Choosing “AND” rather than “OR”

Between two evils, choose neither; between two goods, choose both.

– Tryon Edwards

Advances in cardiology come via the rapid pace of new clinical findings, each providing a unique lens through which to reassess both our patient-care efforts and historical clinical paradigms.

In many cases, new findings are accompanied by an immediate debate about how to apply the new and what to discard from the old. While these debates are valuable, the pitfalls of myopically overinterpreting, and therefore overapplying, new reports cannot be overstated. For example, withholding revascularization from all stable patients would be a drastic overinterpretation of the ISCHEMIA trial. Although the ISCHEMIA trial does demonstrate stress testing’s failure to guide patient management, substantial data continue to demonstrate the long-term effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI, including lowering the risks of heart attack or death.

Similar debates accompany today’s discussions around the evolving role of coronary plaque quantification and characterization and their potential utility in clinical decision making:

A recent State-of-the-Art Review in JACC Cardiovascular Imaging provides much needed perspective in this arena. The world-renowned authors, S. Yang, B. Koo, and J. Narula, argue that powerful plaque insights are interrelated with, and cannot be separated from, their lesion-specific coronary physiology impacts. Rather, the authors state, “there is accumulating evidence that these 2 aspects of coronary artery disease influence each other with significant clinical implications, despite traditionally being considered to have separate effects on significances, treatments, and outcomes.”

This insight informs how we can consider contemporary learnings such as those from the PARADIGM Registry (symptomatic patients with unknown CAD), the Western Denmark Heart Registry (symptomatic patients with known CAD), and the Miami Heart Study (asymptomatic people). Using coronary CTA, these efforts each identified a meaningful proportion of patients with coronary plaque despite a CAC score of 0. Even in the asymptomatic Miami Heart patients, the consistent presence of plaque is striking, but does not immediately inform the clinical utility of having this information.

While studies such as these may provide valuable observations regarding adverse plaque characteristics (APCs), differences in plaque progression, and certain clinical scenarios associated with increased patient risk (e.g., the presence of obstructive CAD caused by noncalcified plaque), it remains clear that plaque insights alone cannot guide clinical treatment decisions. Risk indicators are interesting, but as physicians, we should demand evidence that indicators are tied to outcomes, and that modifying a patient’s management based on these indicators provides clinical benefit. Ultimately, a data-driven and specific treatment decision needs to be made for every patient in the pathway, from those with no or minimal plaque to those with complex disease requiring invasive intervention.

As Yang, et al. spell out, the detailed anatomic understanding of a patient’s plaque cannot be viewed separately from the lesion-specific coronary physiology that results. It is naive and at odds with the very nature of coronary artery disease to consider anatomy at the macroscopic or microscopic level without incorporating information about coronary blood flow, pressure, and forces being applied to individual plaques. These interactions of coronary plaque and blood flow are vital as local hemodynamic realities are central to the probability of a given lesion’s rupture. Consider:

Plaque without physiology? Due to the frequent discordance between anatomic stenosis and physiologic impairment, reported first over 25 years ago, PCI based solely on identification of concerning plaque features would lead to PCI in lesions with preserved FFR (>0.80), an action known to cause, not prevent, MI and death. It also remains purely speculative that withholding revascularization from people with FFR or FFRCT ≤0.80 because of a given plaque’s characteristics is not a dangerous overreach. Clinical outcomes data are required, and rigorous prospective studies should be undertaken to test any such hypothesis before potential utility in patient management is accepted.

As Yang, et al. conclude “a comprehensive understanding of the relationship and integrative assessments of plaque and coronary physiology may better predict future coronary events and better selection of treatment strategies.” To get to the point where the “may” can be removed from this observation will require comprehensive clinical trial programs of utility and outcomes.

Moving forward on that journey, seamless integration of detailed plaque insights with guideline-recognized anatomy and physiology of CTA+FFRCT will ensure that our clinical decisions and our patients benefit from all the precise heart care tools available.

I’ll choose “and” over “or” any day.

— A perspective from HeartFlow Chief Medical Officer, Campbell Rogers, MD

Contact Us

*Required fields

Request the HeartFlow Analysis Near You

If you would like to request to have the HeartFlow Analysis available at a location near you, please submit your information below with details of the institution. We will share this information with the institution, but it will not guarantee HeartFlow will become available.

*Required fields

残念ながら、GDPR 規制により、この Web フォームを通じて求人への応募やキャリアに関する問い合わせを受け付けることはできません。弊社を通じてお申込みください 採用ページ. ご関心をお寄せいただきありがとうございます!


HeartFlow FFRCT 分析は、有資格の臨床医による臨床的に安定した症状のある冠状動脈疾患患者への使用を目的とした個別化された心臓検査です。 HeartFlow Analysis によって提供される情報は、資格のある臨床医が患者の病歴、症状、その他の診断検査、および臨床医の専門的判断と組み合わせて使用​​することを目的としています。


さらに質問がある場合は、このメッセージを閉じてフォームに記入するか、サポート チームにお電話ください。: 877.478.3569.

The HeartFlow FFRCT Analysis is a personalized cardiac test indicated for use in clinically stable symptomatic patients with coronary artery disease by qualified clinicians. The information provided by the HeartFlow Analysis is intended to be used by qualified clinicians in conjunction with the patient’s history, symptoms, and other diagnostic tests, as well as the clinician’s professional judgement.

For additional indication information about the HeartFlow Analysis, please visit

If you have additional questions, close out of this message to complete our form or call our support team: 877.478.3569.

Please apply for research grants through our online submission form.

Unfortunately, we cannot take job applications or career inquiries through this web form due to GDPR regulations. Please apply through our Careers Page. Thank you for your interest!

Campbell Rogers, M.D., F.A.C.C.

Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer

Campbell brings a wealth of experience to HeartFlow, where he serves as the Chief Medical Officer. Prior to joining HeartFlow, he was the Chief Scientific Officer and Global Head of Research and Development at Cordis Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, where he was responsible for leading investments and research in cardiovascular devices. Prior to Cordis, he was Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard-M.I.T. Division of Health Sciences and Technology, and Director of the Cardiac Catheterization and Experimental Cardiovascular Interventional Laboratories at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He served as Principal Investigator for numerous interventional cardiology device, diagnostic, and pharmacology trials, is the author of numerous journal articles, chapters, and books in the area of coronary artery and other cardiovascular diseases, and was the recipient of research grant awards from the NIH and AHA.

He received his A.B. from Harvard College and his M.D. from Harvard Medical School.