Objective The training of interventional cardiologists (ICs), non-interventional cardiologists (NICs) and cardiac surgeons (CSs) differs, and this may be reflected in their interpretation of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and management plan. Availability of systematic coronary physiology might result in more homogeneous interpretation and management strategy compared with ICA alone.Methods 150 coronary angiograms from patients with stable chest pain were presented independently to three NICs, three ICs and three CSs. By consensus, each group graded (1) coronary disease severity and (2) management plan, using options: (a) optimal medical therapy alone, (b) percutaneous coronary intervention, (c) coronary artery bypass graft or (d) more investigation required. Each group was then provided with fractional flow reserve (FFR) from all major vessels and asked to repeat the analysis.Results There was only ‘fair’ level of agreement of management plan among ICs, NICs and CSs (kappa 0.351, 95% CI 0.295–0.408, p
Full Text Finder