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.
But the net of this whole thing was that this trial was organized and run by interventional cardiologists. And the purpose of it was to demonstrate that there's a benefit in heart outcomes by stenting, that we were going to prove finally that opening the arteries did more than just relieve symptoms. And it was negative, completely negative. So there was no difference between the two arms.
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.
The purpose of this was to compare maximum medical therapy to stenting in patients with stable coronary disease. The idea was, is there a benefit in terms of reducing the risk of heart attack or some other heart outcome like death? in patients when you randomly assign them in a non-blinded manner to be treated with maximum medicines or stents.
Let's do that. Yeah. Thank you. Let's go because I alluded to courage and then we got off topic. Tell me about courage. So courage was published in 2007. And if anybody asks me what courage stands for, I don't remember. I don't remember either. Yeah. But it's an acronym that is put together to explain what the trial was about. And I also can't remember who the PI was, but that study. So again, we're talking at this point back about stable angina.
So the other way to look at this is that we've been doing trials of stenting for a long time now. And no one outside of the STEMI situation has demonstrated any benefit in heart outcomes to date.