Coronary Physiology Use Survey Question Title * 1. What is your email address? Question Title * 2. How many years have you been a practicing Interventional Cardiologist? Less than 10 years 10-20 years More than 20 years Question Title * 3. Which best describes the organization for which you predominantly work?: Academic Government Hospital Private Practice Question Title * 4. Regarding use of Fractional Flow reserve (FFR) or non-hyperemic pressure ratios (NHPR) - e.g. iFR, RFR, DFR, - what do you see as the main barrier to operator uptake? Please rank 1-5, with ‘1’ being the highest barrier. Question Title * 5. In your primary cath lab(s), what platforms are available to you? Select all that apply. Abbott (PressureWire X) Abbott/Coroventis (Coroflow, PressureWire X) Boston Scientific (Comet wire) Phillips (Verrata/Omni wire) Opsens Other Question Title * 6. What factors shaped your preferences for particular platforms? None, they are all roughly the same to me Wire deliverability/torquability Cost Ability to test microvascular function Pullback trace Other Question Title * 7. Approximately how often do you get pressure wire drift (≥ 0.03 units) with measurements? 1 in 5 cases 1 in 10 cases 1 in 20 cases 1 in 50 cases Never Don’t check for drift Question Title * 8. Do you repeat the measurement if you get pressure wire drift ≥ 0.03? Yes No Don’t check for drift Question Title * 9. Does getting pressure wire drift make you less likely to use pressure wires in general in the future? Yes No Question Title * 10. Assume a new method existed to measure FFR or a NHPR with no change in hardware/capital equipment in your cath lab, wherein your procedural steps were reduced in half, time was reduced by at least 30%, and you could guarantee no drift would occur, would you measure FFR/NHPR in a higher % of cases? No If yes, in roughly what % of additional cases? Question Title * 11. Assume a new method existed to measure FFR or NHPR with no change in hardware/capital equipment wherein your steps were reduced in half, time was reduced by at least 30%, and you could guarantee no drift would occur. If that method was only available using a particular platform — what is the likelihood that you would select that platform over the other options? Highly likely Likely Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Question Title * 12. Assume your primary cath lab had three different coronary physiology platforms available to you (e.g., Abbott, Phillips, and Boston Scientific) — and once again, assume a new method existed to measure FFR or NHPR with no change in hardware/capital equipment in your cath lab, wherein your steps were reduced in half, time was reduced by at least 30%, and you could guarantee no drift would occur— and that method was only available using a particular platform, which of the following would best represent your mindset? I would always select the particular platform I would be less likely to choose the particular platform despite the advantages because I’m comfortable obtaining FFR/NPHR using my currently preferred platform I would still select another platform for other reasons (please list reasons) Question Title * 13. Assume a new method existed to measure FFR or NHPR with no change in hardware/capital equipment in your cath lab, wherein your steps were reduced in half, time was reduced by at least 30%, and you could guarantee no drift would occur — how likely would this motivate you to ask your cath lab manager to purchase this upgrade to your current physiology system? Highly Likely Likely Somewhat Likely Not Likely Question Title * 14. Assume a new method existed to measure FFR or NHPR with no change in hardware/capital equipment in your cath lab, wherein your steps were reduced in half, time was reduced by at least 30%, and you could guarantee no drift would occur — and that method was only available using a particular platform that your cath lab did not have — how likely would this motivate you to ask your cath lab manager to purchase this new physiology system? Highly Likely Likely Somewhat Likely Not Likely Question Title * 15. Do you have an angiography-guided coronary physiology platform (e.g. CathWorks) available in your cath lab? Yes No Question Title * 16. If Yes, what % of the time do you use angiography-guided coronary physiology (as opposed to wire-based physiology)? 100% 75-99% 50-74% 25-49% 1-24% 0% N/A Question Title * 17. How satisfied are you with your angiography-guided coronary physiology system, scale of 1-5 (1 not satisfied, 5 very satisfied)? 1 2 3 4 5 Question Title * 18. Angiography-based FFR systems require 3 orthogonal views (30 degrees apart) of the entire coronary vessel without panning, with good opacification and without overlap of other vessels being interrogated. What % of cases do you think this is achievable in? 100% 75-99% 50-74% 25-49% 1-24% 0% Question Title * 19. By submitting this survey, you are hereby accepting the terms and conditions set forth herein. If you do not agree, please do not complete the survey. Any information you voluntarily disclose to Stallion RPG, Inc. (the “Company”) in this survey (the “Respondent Data”) will be used for research purposes, content or advertising, and/or to help direct Company activities (the “Purpose”). The Company may share Respondent Data (excluding your name and email address) with third parties in furtherance of the Purpose. Furthermore, you expressly consent to receive communications from or on behalf of the Company, using all contact information you provide to us. This express consent applies to each email address or telephone number that you provide to the Company now or in the future and permits such communication including the opportunity to receive communications relating to future opportunities to participate in studies, tests, preclinical and/or clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of the Stallion RPG. You may opt-out of any communications at any time. Yes Done