The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
over the past 15 years um what has changed is people with plaque but without symptoms generally don't get stented even the most aggressive Interventional cardiologists I won't mention names would probably agree that people who have a lot of plaque maybe with the exception of proxim LED of left main there might be still some people who would think gosh even without symptoms I'm G to put I'm going to put a stent in this person
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
obviously courage was the trial that sort of taught us that it's okay to have a lot of plaque and not necessarily intervene on it there have now been several other trials to get at that question of is and this is s part of the reason why Fame is to me like not that interesting because we kind of already answered the question in all comers that stenting people without symptoms even if they have S significant lesions doesn't offer a benefit over optimal medical therapy