International Circulation: You are the co-principal investigator of the FAME study and the results that trial influenced the 2010 version of the ESC Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization. Can you summarize the take-home message of the FAME study for interventional cardiologists?
　　Prof. Pijls: FAME showed how PCI in patients with multivessel disease can be improved， leading to better outcomes， less death， less myocardial infarction， and less revascularization in these patients.
　　International Circulation: Based on your clinical practice and the results of the FAME study， do you think FFR should be routinely used for every patient undergoing coronary catheterization?
　　Prof. Pijls: No， I do not believe in using it for every patient. For instance， during primary PCI it is not necessary or useful because in those patients with an infarction the ECG trumps every other investigation. On the other hand， during elective revascularization FFR is extremely useful in many of the patients but not all. For example， if a patient only has one single stenosis that is tight， has typical complaints， and a positive non-invasive test， then you do not need to measure fractional flow reserve. However， in the fast majority of our patients today there are nodes of abnormalities or there are focal lesions superimposed on diffuse disease and in these patients it is often impossible to determine where exactly your stents should be placed and how many stents you need. In these patients， FFR makes the treatment much more accurate and better.
　　International Circulation: What are your comments on the value of other non-invasive methods compared to FFR?
　　Prof. Pijls:FFR is much more reliable and accurate than other non-invasive methods. We know that all these non-invasive tests such as exercise testing and SPECT have a number of disadvantages and are only applied and reliable in a minority of patients.
　　International Circulation: Can we make the conclusion that functional complete revascularization in multivessel disease should be the standard? How is functional complete revascularization superior to anatomic complete revascularization?
　　Prof. Pijls: Both of them are very effective at reducing complaints. PCI and stenting is a fantastic treatment to eliminate angina pectoris in patients and we know that up to up to five years after treatment they are still very effective. However， if we look at longevity， occurrence of death， and myocardial infarction， functional complete revascularization scores better. Furthermore，  functional complete revascularization is cheaper， quicker， easier， and has shorter hospital stays.