Coronary angiography, although now performed extremely frequently, rem
ains an invasive and expensive examination, whose place, as first-line
dignostic method, must be discussed; its main advantage is to provide
a definitive diagnosis of coronary atherosclerosis as well as simple
prognostic indicators (single vessel, two-vessel or three-vessel disea
se; concomitant evaluation of left ventricular function by associated
radiological ventriculography). However, it is unable to precisely ass
ess the degree of coronary wall disease and, more importantly, cannot
evaluate the functional repercussions of stenosis. Under these conditi
ons, only cases in which myocardial revascularization is expected to p
rovide a definite clinical benefit (presence of frank angina symptoms)
probably justify first-line coronary angiography. In all other cases,
coronary angiography is a useful examination to provide reference ''m
apping'' of the coronary lesions, but an obvious clinical benefit for
the patient cannot be expected from systematic use of this technique.
In particular, in such situations, coronary angiography should not be
the only element on which the decision to perform myocardia[ revascula
rization should be based: the ''oculostenotic reflex'' must always be
avoided.