Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial
Key result
ORBITA trial establishes the design for evaluating PCI efficacy in stable angina.
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Randomized double-blind trial evaluates placebo-controlled efficacy of angioplasty in stable coronary disease, indicating significant implications for clinical practice and angina management.
Key Points
- Determine the true placebo-controlled effect of percutaneous coronary intervention on exercise capacity and angina symptoms in patients with stable coronary artery disease.
- Conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial comparing coronary angioplasty against a sham procedure in patients on optimal medical therapy.
- Stratified outcomes by pre-randomization invasive physiology (fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio) and dobutamine stress echocardiography score.
- Assesses the placebo-controlled effect size of coronary intervention relative to sham control for angina symptom relief and physical exercise capacity.
- Evaluates whether pre-randomization invasive physiological assessments or stress echocardiography scores reliably identify patients who derive true physical benefit from stenting.
Study Design
Type
RCT
Blinding
Double-blind
PICO
P
Population
Stable coronary artery disease
I
Intervention / Comparator
Percutaneous coronary intervention vs Placebo procedure
Cite This Study
Al‐Lamee et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Stable coronary artery disease. Percutaneous coronary intervention vs. Placebo procedure was evaluated. The abstract outlines the rationale for the ORBITA trial, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina, without reporting quantitative results.