“…The inverse correlation between CFVR and peak wall motion score index in the overall study population was significant (r=0.46: p<0.001), and the concordance between the 2 techniques was good (80%) (Rigo et al, 2003). CFVR had excellent sensitivity (81-94%) but moderate or good specificity (65-84%) in detecting significant LAD stenosis whereas wall motion score index showed lower sensitivity (69-74%) and higher specificity (82-95%), and both techniques demonstrated a similar diagnostic accuracy ranging from 82 to 86% for CFVR and from 81 to 84% for wall motion score index (Rigo et al, 2003;Lowenstein et al, 2003;Nohtomi et al, 2003). So, the data for flow and function may be complementary in predicting the underlying angiographic findings and increase the diagnostic accuracy up to 94% (Nohtomi et al, 2003), because abnormal wall motion may confirm and negative CFVR may exclude CAD more accurately.…”