The scientific evidence in favour of percutaneous transcatheter coronary angioplasty (PTCA) in chronic ischaemic heart disease in terms of reduction of myocardial infarction and mortality is very scarce and controversial. However, for many years, the cardiology community has believed in the dogma that PTCA in chronic ischaemic heart disease could improve symptoms, especially when combined with effective medical therapy. A recent randomized controlled trial (ORBIT) has completely overturned this dogma, questioning much of what we have been taught about revascularization procedures in patients with stable coronary artery disease. In this article, the ORBITA study is discussed in depth, highlighting the lights and shadows of the study itself.
Is it possible that angioplasty does not improve the quality of life in patients with stable angina?
Golino P.
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
2022
Abstract
The scientific evidence in favour of percutaneous transcatheter coronary angioplasty (PTCA) in chronic ischaemic heart disease in terms of reduction of myocardial infarction and mortality is very scarce and controversial. However, for many years, the cardiology community has believed in the dogma that PTCA in chronic ischaemic heart disease could improve symptoms, especially when combined with effective medical therapy. A recent randomized controlled trial (ORBIT) has completely overturned this dogma, questioning much of what we have been taught about revascularization procedures in patients with stable coronary artery disease. In this article, the ORBITA study is discussed in depth, highlighting the lights and shadows of the study itself.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
