Why Don’t We Take Good Advice?

Why don’t we take good advice?

As healthcare practitioners, we have all seen countless patients for whom small lifestyle changes offer a path to significant improvements in their disease management and quality of life.  However, for one reason or another, those small adjustments remain beyond their reach, even when they understand the potential personal value of the change.

Research on what drives us to change has shown that we incorporate additional data and viewpoints when considering a change for someone else, but are less likely to do the same if the change to be made is our own.

Two recent publications highlighted how this struggle with change is seen in cath labs on a daily basis, specifically around the benefits of making physiology-driven revascularization decisions yet the relative infrequency with which physiologic information is acquired.

One study included 18,000 stable patients sent to cath labs in Veterans Health Administration facilities in the US.  It found that using invasive FFR to guide revascularization decisions was associated with a 43% lower risk of all-cause mortality at 1 year, when compared to cases guided only by angiography. “Angiographically intermediate lesions” were found in all of these patients, yet clinicians only used invasive FFR on 16.5% of cases.

Another study looked at nearly 24,000 stable patients who underwent PCI in Sweden. Again, FFR-guided revascularization decisions were associated with a significant reduction (19%) in all-cause mortality at 1 year when compared to patients whose PCI was only angiographically guided.  But again, invasive FFR was used in only 15.4% of cases.

These vast data sets force us to ask questions regarding why clinical methods that are shown to improve patient outcomes are not more widely utilized.  If we encourage our patients to make lifestyle changes that, based on both common sense and clinical data, will likely improve their long-term outcomes, why do we struggle to adjust our own clinical practice in order to meet that same goal?

Whether physiology is assessed with a pressure wire, is derived from an invasive angiogram, or is performed completely non-invasively via a coronary CTA and the HeartFlow FFRCT Analysis, the message that physiology-guided revascularization is better for patients is clear and being recognized around the world. But it is a change that requires a shift in practice as we work to overcome the clinical bias of the “ocular-stenotic reflex.”

So as we ask patients to make lifestyle modifications or adhere to a new drug regimen, let us also make a commitment to shift our own behavior as well. The evidence is clear that incorporating physiology in decision making about revascularization results in better outcomes and longer lives for our patients. By making this shift, we can ensure we are doing our part to help patients manage their coronary disease optimally.

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

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 www.heartflow.com/indications.

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.