RT Journal
A1 Peter EA, Akkus NI, Varma J
T1 Percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary artery disease: The debate continues
JF Archives of Internal Medicine
JO Archives of Internal Medicine
YR 2012
FD July 9
VO 172
IS 13
SP 1043
OP 1044
DO 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1753
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1753
AB 
We read the recent meta-analysis by Drs Stergiopoulos and Brown1 comparing initial medical therapy with initial stent implantation for stable coronary artery disease (CAD) as well as the accompanying Invited Commentary by Dr Boden2 with great interest. However, we are concerned that the choice of trials does not support the conclusions arrived at. We agree with Dr Boden that any meta-analysis comparing optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone with OMT and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable CAD that fails to exclude both acute and post–myocardial infarction (MI) trials suffers from a significant methodological flaw.