Lee SH, Lee JM, Park J, et al. - Researchers compared resistive reserve ratio, which represents the vasodilatory capacity of interrogated vessels including both epicardial coronary artery as well as microvascular circulation, vs pressure‐derived index (fractional flow reserve [FFR]) or flow‐derived index (coronary flow reserve [CFR]) in terms of their prognostic potentials. Overall 1,245 patients were asked to undergo coronary pressure and flow measurement employing pressure‐temperature wire. Through patient‐oriented composite outcome (POCO), a composite of any death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization at 5 years, experts evaluated clinical outcome. In patients with deferred revascularization, a significantly higher risk of POCO was observed among those exhibiting depressed resistive reserve ratio (< 3.5) vs those exhibiting preserved resistive reserve ratio (≥ 3.5) in patients with FFR > 0.80 or patients with CFR > 2.0. A significant link of resistive reserve ratio <3.5 with the risk of POCO at 5 years was evident in multivariable model. Overall, findings highlighted incremental prognostic implications shown by resistive reserve ratio, which combined both coronary flow and pressure, among patients with coronary artery disease receiving elective percutaneous coronary intervention guided by invasive physiologic assessment.