Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Systematic review
Angina relief with percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy for chronic stable angina
  1. Dmitriy N Feldman
  1. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dmitriy N Feldman
    520 East 70th Street, Starr-434 Pavilion, New York, NY 10021, USA; dnf9001{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Commentary on:

The benefits of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) over medical therapy have been well demonstrated in a broad spectrum of patients with acute ischaemic syndromes.1 Recent analyses of PCI versus medical therapy showed similar efficacy in regard to long-term mortality or myocardial infarction (MI) between these two strategies in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).2 Wijeysundera and colleagues have systematically evaluated the evidence comparing the effects of PCI versus medical therapy on the relief of angina in stable CAD. Two independent authors have identified 14 randomised controlled trials of PCI versus medical therapy in patients with stable CAD through the Cochrane Library (1993 to June 2009), EMBASE (1980 to June 2009) or MEDLINE (1950 to June 2009) searches. A comprehensive meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model based on the Der-Simonian and Laird method to combine data on freedom from angina. Stratified analyses were performed based on duration of follow-up, inclusion of patients with recent MI, coronary …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None.