Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Cardiovascular medicine is one of the specialties that has relied most heavily on evidence from randomised clinical trials in determining best practice for the management of common disease conditions. When comparing treatment approaches, trials incorporating random allocation are the most appropriate method for protecting against treatment allocation bias. In order to protect against performance and ascertainment bias, trial designs including placebo control are preferable where feasible. In contrast to testing of medicines, treatments based on procedures or use of medical devices are more challenging to assess, as sham procedures are necessary to facilitate blinding of participants. However, in many cases, ethical concerns exist, as individual patients allocated to sham procedure are exposed only to risk without potential for benefit. Accordingly, the potential benefits to the general patient population must be carefully weighed against the risks of the exposed individuals. For this reason, trial design and study conduct are critically important to ensure that the investigation has the best chance of answering the study question at hand. In the current manuscript, we aim to review issues relating to the conduct of sham-controlled trials and discuss a number of recent examples in the field of interventional cardiology.

Original publication




Journal article



Publication Date





708 - 715