A meta-analysis of eight trials found that PCI had no clinical benefit over standard medical therapy in cases of stable coronary artery disease. However, physicians pointed out there is little new information in the report and raised concerns about the study's design. "This is largely old news, and many interventional cardiologists are avoiding the pitfalls that the [study] authors are pointing out," said SCAI Advocacy Committee Chair Dr. James Blankenship. Blankenship, SCAI Vice President Dr. Ted Bass and SCAI member Dr. Ajay Kirtane discussed PCI's role in non-acute cases. "For many people, conservative medical therapy is the right thing, but for those who have a lot of symptoms, having a coronary intervention is a reasonable strategy," Blankenship said. Bass made similar points, adding that "the bottom line is that clinicians want to practice evidence-based medicine and provide the best care to our patients. That's what we care about."
Published in Brief: