TY  - JOUR
T1  - Percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary artery disease: The debate continues
AU  - Peter EA, Akkus NI, Varma J
Y1  - 2012/07/09
N1  - 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1753
JO  - Archives of Internal Medicine
SP  - 1043
EP  - 1044
VL  - 172
IS  - 13
N2  - 
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.

SN  - 0003-9926
M3  - doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1753
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1753
ER  -