Citation: Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 13(4):e008487, 2020 Apr..Journal: Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.Published: ; 2020ISSN: 1941-7640.Full author list: De Maria GL; Garcia-Garcia HM; Scarsini R; Hideo-Kajita A; Gonzalo Lopez N; Leone AM; Sarno G; Daemen J; Shlofmitz E; Jeremias A; Tebaldi M; Bezerra HG; Tu S; Lemos PA; Ozaki Y; Dan K; Collet C; Banning AP; Barbato E; Johnson NP; Waksman R.UI/PMID: 32295416.Subject(s): IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXEDInstitution(s): MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute | MedStar Washington Hospital CenterActivity type: Journal Article.Medline article type(s): Journal ArticleOnline resources: Click here to access onlineDigital Object Identifier: https://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008487 (Click here)Abbreviated citation: Circ., Cardiovasc. interv.. 13(4):e008487, 2020 Apr.Local Holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 2008 - present.Abstract: Fractional flow reserve is the current invasive gold standard for assessing the ischemic potential of an angiographically intermediate coronary stenosis. Procedural cost and time, the need for coronary vessel instrumentation, and the need to administer adenosine to achieve maximal hyperemia remain integral components of invasive fractional flow reserve. The number of new alternatives to fractional flow reserve has proliferated over the last ten years using techniques ranging from alternative pressure wire metrics to anatomic simulation via angiography or intravascular imaging. This review article provides a critical description of the currently available or under-development alternatives to fractional flow reserve with a special focus on the available evidence, pros, and cons for each with a view towards their clinical application in the near future for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease.