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.

The role of percutaneous coronary interventions in addition to medical therapy for patients with stable coronary artery disease continues to be debated in routine clinical practice, despite more than 2 decades of randomized controlled trials. The residual uncertainty arises from particular challenges facing revascularization trials. Which endpoint do doctors care about, and which do patients care about? Which participants should be enrolled? What background medical therapy should we use? When is placebo control relevant? In this paper, we discuss how these questions can be approached and examine the merits and disadvantages of possible options. Engaging multiple stakeholders, including patients, researchers, regulators, and funders, to ensure the design elements are methodologically valid and clinically meaningful should be an aspirational goal in the development of future trials.

Original publication




Journal article


J Am Coll Cardiol

Publication Date





435 - 450


coronary artery disease, methods, percutaneous coronary intervention, randomized controlled trials, Coronary Artery Disease, Humans, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Quality Improvement, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design