Both percutaneous interventions and medical therapy improved since the publication of this trial. There are newer trials in this area that we will review in the next few weeks, and then we will provide a summary of the best approach to these patients based on clinical trials.
I agree it is very enlightening to go back to review older trials (as you have been doing). It is good to note the evolution of trial design, and also to realize where some of the foundational heuristics for clinical practice came from. This trial came in my pre-cardiology time. “PCI doesn’t improve hard outcomes in stable CAD” was already a thing when I became a fellow (although based on what I saw in Cath lab back then, it didn’t stop many people).
Also interesting to see that “spin” has been around for quite a while as well.
that trial was done in 1997, right? have their been any advances since, or are meds still the best approach for this population?
Both percutaneous interventions and medical therapy improved since the publication of this trial. There are newer trials in this area that we will review in the next few weeks, and then we will provide a summary of the best approach to these patients based on clinical trials.
Thank you ... super helpful!
I agree it is very enlightening to go back to review older trials (as you have been doing). It is good to note the evolution of trial design, and also to realize where some of the foundational heuristics for clinical practice came from. This trial came in my pre-cardiology time. “PCI doesn’t improve hard outcomes in stable CAD” was already a thing when I became a fellow (although based on what I saw in Cath lab back then, it didn’t stop many people).
Also interesting to see that “spin” has been around for quite a while as well.