Placebo Control and Blinding in Randomized Trials of Procedural Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression.

Importance: Unlike medications, procedural interventions are rarely trialed against placebo prior to becoming accepted in clinical practice. When placebo-controlled trials are eventually conducted, procedural interventions may be less effective than previously believed. Objective: To investigate the importance of including a placebo arm in trials of surgical and interventional procedures by comparing effect sizes from trials of the same procedure that do and do not include a placebo arm. Data Sources: Searches of MEDLINE and Embase identified all placebo-controlled trials for procedural interventions in any specialty of medicine and surgery from inception to March 31, 2019. A secondary search identified randomized clinical trials assessing the same intervention, condition, and end point but without a placebo arm for paired comparison. Study Selection: Placebo-controlled trials of anatomically site-specific procedures requiring skin incision or endoscopic techniques were eligible for inclusion; these were then matched to trials without placebo control that fell within prespecified limits of heterogeneity. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Random-effects meta-regression, with placebo and blinding as a fixed effect and intervention and end point grouping as random effects, was used to calculate the impact of placebo control for each end point. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points were examined in prespecified subgroups: patient-reported or health care professional-assessed outcomes, quality of life, pain, blood pressure, exercise-related outcomes, recurrent bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Results: Ninety-seven end points were matched from 72 blinded, placebo-controlled trials (hereafter, blinded) and 55 unblinded trials without placebo control (hereafter, unblinded), including 111 500 individual patient end points. Unblinded trials had larger standardized effect sizes than blinded trials for exercise-related outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.89; P < .001) and quality-of-life (SMD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.53; P = .003) and health care professional-assessed end points (SMD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.61; P < .001). The placebo effect accounted for 88.1%, 55.2%, and 61.3% of the observed unblinded effect size for these end points, respectively. There was no significant difference between unblinded and blinded trials for patient-reported end points (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.64; P = .07), blood pressure (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.62; P = .15), all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.72; P = .36), pain (SMD, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.57; P = .91), or recurrent bleeding events (OR, -0.12; 95% CI, -1.11 to 0.88; P = .88). Conclusions and Relevance: The magnitude of the placebo effect found in this systematic review and meta-regression was dependent on the end point. Placebo control in trials of procedural interventions had the greatest impact on exercise-related, quality-of-life, and health care professional-assessed end points. Randomized clinical trials of procedural interventions may consider placebo control accordingly.

Coronary sinus reducer for the treatment of refractory angina (ORBITA-COSMIC): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is proposed to reduce angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease by improving myocardial perfusion. We aimed to measure its efficacy, compared with placebo, on myocardial ischaemia reduction and symptom improvement. METHODS: ORBITA-COSMIC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted at six UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older with angina, stable coronary artery disease, ischaemia, and no further options for treatment were eligible. All patients completed a quantitative adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan, symptom and quality-of-life questionnaires, and a treadmill exercise test before entering a 2-week symptom assessment phase, in which patients reported their angina symptoms using a smartphone application (ORBITA-app). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either CSR or placebo. Both participants and investigators were masked to study assignment. After the CSR implantation or placebo procedure, patients entered a 6-month blinded follow-up phase in which they reported their daily symptoms in the ORBITA-app. At 6 months, all assessments were repeated. The primary outcome was myocardial blood flow in segments designated ischaemic at enrolment during the adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan. The primary symptom outcome was the number of daily angina episodes. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat and followed Bayesian methodology. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04892537, and completed. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2021, and June 28, 2023, 61 patients were enrolled, of whom 51 (44 [86%] male; seven [14%] female) were randomly assigned to either the CSR group (n=25) or the placebo group (n=26). Of these, 50 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (24 in the CSR group and 26 in the placebo group). 454 (57%) of 800 imaged cardiac segments were ischaemic at enrolment, with a median stress myocardial blood flow of 1·08 mL/min per g (IQR 0·77-1·41). Myocardial blood flow in ischaemic segments did not improve with CSR compared with placebo (difference 0·06 mL/min per g [95% CrI -0·09 to 0·20]; Pr(Benefit)=78·8%). The number of daily angina episodes was reduced with CSR compared with placebo (OR 1·40 [95% CrI 1·08 to 1·83]; Pr(Benefit)=99·4%). There were two CSR embolisation events in the CSR group, and no acute coronary syndrome events or deaths in either group. INTERPRETATION: ORBITA-COSMIC found no evidence that the CSR improved transmural myocardial perfusion, but the CSR did improve angina compared with placebo. These findings provide evidence for the use of CSR as a further antianginal option for patients with stable coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, St Mary's Coronary Flow Trust, British Heart Foundation.

The ability of contemporary cardiologists to judge the ischemic impact of a coronary lesion visually

BACKGROUND: Landmark trials showed that invasive pressure measurement (Fractional Flow Reserve, FFR) was a better guide to coronary stenting than visual assessment. However, present-day interventionists have benefited from extensive research and personal experience of mapping anatomy to hemodynamics. AIMS: To determine if visual assessment of the angiogram performs as well as invasive measurement of coronary physiology. METHODS: 25 interventional cardiologists independently visually assessed the single vessel coronary disease of 200 randomized participants in The Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina trial (ORBITA). They gave a visual prediction of the FFR and Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio (iFR), denoted vFFR and viFR respectively. Each judged each lesion on 2 occasions, so that every lesion had 50 vFFR, and 50 viFR assessments. The group consensus visual estimates (vFFR-group and viFR-group) and individual cardiologists' visual estimates (vFFR-individual and viFR-individual) were tested alongside invasively measured FFR and iFR for their ability to predict the placebo-controlled reduction in stress echo ischemia with stenting. RESULTS: Placebo-controlled ischemia improvement with stenting was predicted by vFFR-group (p < 0.0001) and viFR-group (p < 0.0001), vFFR-individual (p < 0.0001) and viFR-individual (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the predictive performance of the group visual estimates and their invasive counterparts: p = 0.53 for vFFR vs FFR and p = 0.56 for viFR vs iFR. CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of the angiogram by contemporary experts, provides significant additional information on the amount of ischaemia which can be relieved by placebo-controlled stenting in single vessel coronary artery disease.

A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the coronary sinus Reducer in refractory angina: design and rationale of the ORBITA-COSMIC trial.

The coronary sinus Reducer (CSR) is an hourglass-shaped device which creates an artificial stenosis in the coronary sinus. Whilst placebo-controlled data show an improvement in angina, these results are unreplicated and are the subject of further confirmatory research. The mechanism of action of this unintuitive therapy is unknown. The Coronary Sinus Reducer Objective Impact on Symptoms, MRI Ischaemia, and Microvascular Resistance (ORBITA-COSMIC) trial is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial investigating the efficacy of the CSR. Patients with (i) established epicardial coronary artery disease, (ii) angina on maximally tolerated antianginal medication, (iii) evidence of myocardial ischaemia and (iv) no further options for percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting will be enrolled. Upon enrolment, angina and quality-of-life questionnaires, treadmill exercise testing and quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging will be performed. Participants will record their symptoms daily on a smartphone application throughout the trial. After a 2-week symptom assessment phase, participants will be randomised in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory to CSR or a placebo procedure. After 6 months of blinded follow-up, all prerandomisation tests will be repeated. A prespecified subgroup will undergo invasive coronary physiology assessment at prerandomisation and follow-up. The primary outcome is stress myocardial blood flow on CMR. Secondary outcomes include angina frequency, quality of life and treadmill exercise time. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04892537).

The ability of contemporary cardiologists to judge the ischemic impact of a coronary lesion visually.

BACKGROUND: Landmark trials showed that invasive pressure measurement (Fractional Flow Reserve, FFR) was a better guide to coronary stenting than visual assessment. However, present-day interventionists have benefited from extensive research and personal experience of mapping anatomy to hemodynamics. AIMS: To determine if visual assessment of the angiogram performs as well as invasive measurement of coronary physiology. METHODS: 25 interventional cardiologists independently visually assessed the single vessel coronary disease of 200 randomized participants in The Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina trial (ORBITA). They gave a visual prediction of the FFR and Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio (iFR), denoted vFFR and viFR respectively. Each judged each lesion on 2 occasions, so that every lesion had 50 vFFR, and 50 viFR assessments. The group consensus visual estimates (vFFR-group and viFR-group) and individual cardiologists' visual estimates (vFFR-individual and viFR-individual) were tested alongside invasively measured FFR and iFR for their ability to predict the placebo-controlled reduction in stress echo ischemia with stenting. RESULTS: Placebo-controlled ischemia improvement with stenting was predicted by vFFR-group (p < 0.0001) and viFR-group (p < 0.0001), vFFR-individual (p < 0.0001) and viFR-individual (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the predictive performance of the group visual estimates and their invasive counterparts: p = 0.53 for vFFR vs FFR and p = 0.56 for viFR vs iFR. CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of the angiogram by contemporary experts, provides significant additional information on the amount of ischaemia which can be relieved by placebo-controlled stenting in single vessel coronary artery disease.

A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed to reduce the symptoms of stable angina. Whether PCI relieves angina more than a placebo procedure in patients who are not receiving antianginal medication remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of PCI in patients with stable angina. Patients stopped all antianginal medications and underwent a 2-week symptom assessment phase before randomization. Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure and were followed for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the angina symptom score, which was calculated daily on the basis of the number of angina episodes that occurred on a given day, the number of antianginal medications prescribed on that day, and clinical events, including the occurrence of unblinding owing to unacceptable angina or acute coronary syndrome or death. Scores range from 0 to 79, with higher scores indicating worse health status with respect to angina. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients underwent randomization: 151 to the PCI group and 150 to the placebo group. The mean (±SD) age was 64±9 years, and 79% were men. Ischemia was present in one cardiac territory in 242 patients (80%), in two territories in 52 patients (17%), and in three territories in 7 patients (2%). In the target vessels, the median fractional flow reserve was 0.63 (interquartile range, 0.49 to 0.75), and the median instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.78 (interquartile range, 0.55 to 0.87). At the 12-week follow-up, the mean angina symptom score was 2.9 in the PCI group and 5.6 in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.41 to 3.47; P<0.001). One patient in the placebo group had unacceptable angina leading to unblinding. Acute coronary syndromes occurred in 4 patients in the PCI group and in 6 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable angina who were receiving little or no antianginal medication and had objective evidence of ischemia, PCI resulted in a lower angina symptom score than a placebo procedure, indicating a better health status with respect to angina. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and others; ORBITA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03742050.).

Development of artificial intelligence tools for invasive Doppler-based coronary microvascular assessment.

Aims: Coronary flow reserve (CFR) assessment has proven clinical utility, but Doppler-based methods are sensitive to noise and operator bias, limiting their clinical applicability. The objective of the study is to expand the adoption of invasive Doppler CFR, through the development of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to automatically quantify coronary Doppler quality and track flow velocity. Methods and results: A neural network was trained on images extracted from coronary Doppler flow recordings to score signal quality and derive values for coronary flow velocity and CFR. The outputs were independently validated against expert consensus. Artificial intelligence successfully quantified Doppler signal quality, with high agreement with expert consensus (Spearman's rho: 0.94), and within individual experts. Artificial intelligence automatically tracked flow velocity with superior numerical agreement against experts, when compared with the current console algorithm [AI flow vs. expert flow bias -1.68 cm/s, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.13 to -1.23 cm/s, P < 0.001 with limits of agreement (LOA) -4.03 to 0.68 cm/s; console flow vs. expert flow bias -2.63 cm/s, 95% CI -3.74 to -1.52, P < 0.001, 95% LOA -8.45 to -3.19 cm/s]. Artificial intelligence yielded more precise CFR values [median absolute difference (MAD) against expert CFR: 4.0% for AI and 7.4% for console]. Artificial intelligence tracked lower-quality Doppler signals with lower variability (MAD against expert CFR 8.3% for AI and 16.7% for console). Conclusion: An AI-based system, trained by experts and independently validated, could assign a quality score to Doppler traces and derive coronary flow velocity and CFR. By making Doppler CFR more automated, precise, and operator-independent, AI could expand the clinical applicability of coronary microvascular assessment.

Remote digital smart device follow-up in prospective clinical trials: early insights from ORBITA-2, ORBITA-COSMIC, and ORBITA-STAR.

Smart devices are a fundamental media for acquisition, processing, storage, and transfer of digital health data. The global penetration and high frequency usage of smart devices such as smartphones and fitness monitors provide us an opportunity for incorporation into clinical trials to generate more clinically meaningful data. Reporting of angina can significantly vary between patients and also within patients at different timepoints. Furthermore, the nature of angina can lead to variation in ways patients adapt their activities of daily living and hence reporting of symptoms and quality of life. Current clinical trials investigating the effects of intervention on angina do not accurately incorporate these patient centred outcomes and considerations. Hence, methods to contemporaneously assess daily angina burden in a convenient, patient focused, and cost-effective manner are priorities for contemporary clinical trials to address. In this article, we provide our insights into the use of remote digital smart devices in clinical trials of stable coronary artery disease conducted by our research group. We discuss how our experiences from previous trials necessitated its incorporation and will provide us with important data that will inform clinical practice. We discuss the benefits and current challenges and limitations of smart device incorporation while providing our procedural workflow for how we incorporated smart devices into our clinical trials for others to consider. We hope that this approach will allow us to understand the perceptions and implications of angina on patient lives with greater granularity than previously explored.

Revascularization in stable coronary artery disease.

Management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) centers on medication to prevent myocardial infarction and death. Many anti-anginal medications also have benefit for reducing symptoms, and have been proven to be effective against placebo control. Before effective preventive medications were available, patients with stable CAD often underwent revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), on the plausible assumption that these procedures would prevent adverse events and reduce symptoms. However, recent randomized controlled trials have cast doubt on these assumptions.Considering results from the recent ISCHEMIA trial, we discuss the evidence base that underpins revascularization for stable CAD in contemporary practice. We also focus on patient groups at high risk of myocardial infarction and death, for whom revascularization is often recommended. We outline the areas of uncertainty, unanswered research questions, and key areas of potential miscommunication in doctor-patient consultations.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention: a substudy of the ORBITA trial.

AIMS: Oxygen-pulse morphology and gas exchange analysis measured during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has been associated with myocardial ischaemia. The aim of this analysis was to examine the relationship between CPET parameters, myocardial ischaemia and anginal symptoms in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and to determine the ability of these parameters to predict the placebo-controlled response to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with severe single-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) were randomized 1:1 to PCI or placebo in the ORBITA trial. Subjects underwent pre-randomization treadmill CPET, dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and symptom assessment. These assessments were repeated at the end of a 6-week blinded follow-up period.A total of 195 patients with CPET data were randomized (102 PCI, 93 placebo). Patients in whom an oxygen-pulse plateau was observed during CPET had higher (more ischaemic) DSE score [+0.82 segments; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40 to 1.25, P = 0.0068] and lower fractional flow reserve (-0.07; 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.02, P = 0.011) compared with those without. At lower (more abnormal) oxygen-pulse slopes, there was a larger improvement of the placebo-controlled effect of PCI on DSE score [oxygen-pulse plateau presence (Pinteraction = 0.026) and oxygen-pulse gradient (Pinteraction = 0.023)] and Seattle angina physical-limitation score [oxygen-pulse plateau presence (Pinteraction = 0.037)]. Impaired peak VO2, VE/VCO2 slope, peak oxygen-pulse, and oxygen uptake efficacy slope was significantly associated with higher symptom burden but did not relate to severity of ischaemia or predict response to PCI. CONCLUSION: Although selected CPET parameters relate to severity of angina symptoms and quality of life, only an oxygen-pulse plateau detects the severity of myocardial ischaemia and predicts the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI in patients with single-vessel CAD.

Coronary flow reserve and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: This meta-analysis aims to quantify the association of reduced coronary flow with all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) across a broad range of patient groups and pathologies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all studies between 1 January 2000 and 1 August 2020, where coronary flow was measured and clinical outcomes were reported. The endpoints were all-cause mortality and MACE. Estimates of effect were calculated from published hazard ratios (HRs) using a random-effects model. Seventy-nine studies with a total of 59 740 subjects were included. Abnormal coronary flow reserve (CFR) was associated with a higher incidence of all-cause mortality [HR: 3.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.39-5.97] and a higher incidence of MACE (HR 3.42, 95% CI: 2.92-3.99). Each 0.1 unit reduction in CFR was associated with a proportional increase in mortality (per 0.1 CFR unit HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.29) and MACE (per 0.1 CFR unit HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04-1.11). In patients with isolated coronary microvascular dysfunction, an abnormal CFR was associated with a higher incidence of mortality (HR: 5.44, 95% CI: 3.78-7.83) and MACE (HR: 3.56, 95% CI: 2.14-5.90). Abnormal CFR was also associated with a higher incidence of MACE in patients with acute coronary syndromes (HR: 3.76, 95% CI: 2.35-6.00), heart failure (HR: 6.38, 95% CI: 1.95-20.90), heart transplant (HR: 3.32, 95% CI: 2.34-4.71), and diabetes mellitus (HR: 7.47, 95% CI: 3.37-16.55). CONCLUSION: Reduced coronary flow is strongly associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and MACE across a wide range of pathological processes. This finding supports recent recommendations that coronary flow should be measured more routinely in clinical practice, to target aggressive vascular risk modification for individuals at higher risk.

Mechanical thrombectomy with retrievable stents and aspiration catheters for acute ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Retrievable stents and aspiration catheters have been developed to provide more effective arterial recanalisation in acute ischaemic stroke. AIMS: The aim of this analysis was to test the effect of mechanical thrombectomy on mortality and long-term neurological outcome in patients presenting with acute large-vessel anterior circulation ischaemic stroke. METHODS: A structured search identified randomised controlled trials of thrombectomy (using a retrievable stent or aspiration catheter) versus control on a background of medical therapy which included intravenous thrombolysis if appropriate. The primary endpoint was disability at 90-day follow-up as assessed by the modified Rankin scale (mRS). Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage. A Bayesian mixed-effects model was used for analysis. RESULTS: Twelve trials met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 1,276 patients randomised to thrombectomy and 1,282 patients to control. Randomisation to thrombectomy significantly reduced disability at 90 days (odds ratio [OR] 0.52, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.46 to 0.61, probability(control better)<0.0001). Furthermore, thrombectomy reduced the odds of functional dependence at 90 days, indicated by an mRS score >2 (OR 0.44, CrI 0.37 to 0.52, p<0.0001). Thrombectomy reduced all-cause mortality at 90 days (16.1% vs 19.2%, OR 0.81, 95% CrI 0.66 to 0.99, p=0.024). The frequency of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was similar between thrombectomy (4.2%) and control (4.0%) (OR 1.12, 95% CrI 0.76 to 1.68, p=0.72). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an acute anterior circulation stroke, modern device thrombectomy significantly reduces death and subsequent disability. The magnitude of these effects suggests that universal access to this treatment strategy should be the standard of care.

Side Effect Patterns in a Crossover Trial of Statin, Placebo, and No Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Most people who begin statins abandon them, most commonly because of side effects. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess daily symptom scores on statin, placebo, and no treatment in participants who had abandoned statins. METHODS: Participants received 12 1-month medication bottles, 4 containing atorvastatin 20 mg, 4 placebo, and 4 empty. We measured daily symptom intensity for each using an app (scale 1-100). We also measured the "nocebo" ratio: the ratio of symptoms induced by taking statin that was also induced by taking placebo. RESULTS: A total of 60 participants were randomized and 49 completed the 12-month protocol. Mean symptom score was 8.0 (95% CI: 4.7-11.3) in no-tablet months. It was higher in statin months (16.3; 95% CI: 13.0-19.6; P < 0.001), but also in placebo months (15.4; 95% CI: 12.1-18.7; P < 0.001), with no difference between the 2 (P = 0.388). The corresponding nocebo ratio was 0.90. In the individual-patient daily data, neither symptom intensity on starting (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98-1.06; P = 0.28) nor extent of symptom relief on stopping (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.98-1.05; P = 0.48) distinguished between statin and placebo. Stopping was no more frequent for statin than placebo (P = 0.173), and subsequent symptom relief was similar between statin and placebo. At 6 months after the trial, 30 of 60 (50%) participants were back taking statins. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of symptoms caused by statin tablets were nocebo. Clinicians should not interpret symptom intensity or timing of symptom onset or offset (on starting or stopping statin tablets) as indicating pharmacological causation, because the pattern is identical for placebo. (Self-Assessment Method for Statin Side-effects Or Nocebo [SAMSON]; NCT02668016).

Placebo-Controlled Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Focal and Diffuse Patterns of Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

[Figure: see text].

Optimising physiological endpoints of percutaneous coronary intervention.

Invasive coronary physiology to select patients for coronary revascularisation has become established in contemporary guidelines for the management of stable coronary artery disease. Compared to revascularisation based on angiography alone, the use of coronary physiology has been shown to improve clinical outcomes and cost efficiency. However, recent data from randomised controlled trials have cast doubt upon the value of ischaemia testing to select patients for revascularisation. Importantly, 20-40% of patients have persistence or recurrence of angina after angiographically successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This state-of-the-art review is focused on the transitioning role of invasive coronary physiology from its use as a dichotomous test for ischaemia with fixed cut-points, towards its utility for real-time guidance of PCI to optimise physiological results. We summarise the contemporary evidence base for ischaemia testing in stable coronary artery disease, examine emerging indices which allow advanced physiological guidance of PCI, and discuss the rationale and evidence base for post-PCI physiological assessments to assess the success of revascularisation.

Achieving Optimal Medical Therapy: Insights From the ORBITA Trial.

Background In stable coronary artery disease, medications are used for 2 purposes: cardiovascular risk reduction and symptom improvement. In clinical trials and clinical practice, medication use is often not optimal. The ORBITA (Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation With Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina) trial was the first placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous coronary intervention. A key component of the ORBITA trial design was the inclusion of a medical optimization phase, aimed at ensuring that all patients were treated with guideline-directed truly optimal medical therapy. In this study, we report the medical therapy that was achieved. Methods and Results After enrollment into the ORBITA trial, all 200 patients entered a 6-week period of intensive medical therapy optimization, with initiation and uptitration of risk reduction and antianginal therapy. At the prerandomization stage, the median number of antianginals established was 3 (interquartile range, 2-4). A total of 195 patients (97.5%) reached the prespecified target of ≥2 antianginals; 136 (68.0%) did not stop any antianginals because of adverse effects, and the median number of antianginals stopped for adverse effects per patient was 0 (interquartile range, 0-1). Amlodipine and bisoprolol were well tolerated (stopped for adverse effects in 4/175 [2.3%] and 9/167 [5.4%], respectively). Ranolazine and ivabradine were also well tolerated (stopped for adverse effects in 1/20 [5.0%] and 1/18 [5.6%], respectively). Isosorbide mononitrate and nicorandil were stopped for adverse effects in 36 of 172 (20.9%) and 32 of 141 (22.7%) of patients, respectively. Statins were well tolerated and taken by 191 of 200 (95.5%) patients. Conclusions In the 12-week ORBITA trial period, medical therapy was successfully optimized and well tolerated, with few drug adverse effects leading to therapy cessation. Truly optimal medical therapy can be achieved in clinical trials, and translating this into longer-term clinical practice should be a focus of future study. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02062593.