Evaluating the Evidence on Cardiac Catheterization and Stenting

Introduction

The evidence base for cardiac catheterization and stenting has undergone a quiet revolution over the past two decades. Trials that once seemed to confirm the value of opening blocked arteries have given way to studies showing smaller or no benefits for many patients with stable disease. Understanding how to read this evidence critically matters because the conclusions you draw will directly affect the decisions you make about your own care.

Most patients encounter medical evidence filtered through their physicians, media reports, or advocacy organizations. Each filter introduces distortion. Physicians may have training biases or financial relationships that shape their interpretation. Journalists compress nuance into headlines. Professional societies balance scientific rigor against their members’ economic interests. Navigating these filters requires basic literacy in how cardiovascular trials are designed, funded, reported, and interpreted.

This article provides the tools to evaluate catheterization evidence independently. It examines the landmark trials that shaped current understanding, explains why placebo-controlled surgical research is so rare and so valuable, and identifies the biases that can inflate perceived benefits. For context on what the evidence actually shows about outcomes, see Catheterization Evidence and Outcomes. For the ongoing debates these findings have generated, see Controversies and Limitations.

Why have major trials like COURAGE, ORBITA, and ISCHEMIA challenged assumptions about stenting?

For decades, interventional cardiology operated on a logical premise: if a blocked artery causes symptoms or threatens heart muscle, opening it should help. This reasoning drove millions of stent placements annually before rigorous testing arrived. When properly designed trials finally tested this assumption, the results surprised many practitioners and contradicted decades of practice patterns.

The COURAGE trial published in 2007 randomized 2,287 patients with stable coronary artery disease to either optimal medical therapy alone or optimal medical therapy plus PCI (Boden et al., 2007). At five years, the groups showed no significant difference in death or myocardial infarction. The study demonstrated that for stable disease, opening blockages did not prevent the events patients most feared. COURAGE challenged the assumption that anatomical correction necessarily translates to clinical benefit.

The ISCHEMIA trial, with over 5,000 patients, confirmed these findings in a larger, more contemporary population (Reynolds et al., 2021). Even patients with moderate-to-severe ischemia on stress testing showed no mortality benefit from an early invasive strategy compared to medical therapy. These trials shifted the question from “can we open this blockage?” to “should we open this blockage?”—a distinction with profound implications for patient care.

What was innovative about the ORBITA trial’s use of a sham procedure?

The ORBITA trial introduced placebo-controlled methodology to coronary intervention research (Al-Lamee et al., 2018). All 200 patients underwent diagnostic catheterization. Half then received stent placement; half underwent a sham procedure with the same duration, sounds, and sedation but no intervention. Neither patients nor the physicians assessing outcomes knew who received actual treatment. This design isolated the specific effect of opening the artery from the powerful psychological impact of undergoing a procedure.

The results shocked the interventional community. After six weeks, exercise capacity improved modestly in both groups, with no significant difference between them. Angina frequency decreased in both groups as well. The placebo effect of catheterization—the benefit derived simply from believing you received treatment—appeared to account for much of the symptom relief previously attributed to stenting.

ORBITA’s implications extend beyond its specific findings. The study demonstrated that the “obvious” benefits of opening blocked arteries had never been properly tested against placebo. Decades of clinical practice had assumed benefit based on mechanistic reasoning and unblinded trials where patients knew they received treatment. When rigorous methodology arrived, the assumed benefits substantially diminished.

How do industry-funded trials of stents and devices compare to independently funded research?

Industry funding shapes cardiovascular research in predictable ways. Device and pharmaceutical companies fund most large clinical trials because the cost of conducting them exceeds what government or academic sources typically provide. This creates an inherent structural bias: companies fund trials they expect will support their products, and unfavorable trials may be discontinued, delayed, or buried.

The pattern emerges in publication records. Studies favorable to sponsors’ products are more likely to be published, published faster, and published in higher-impact journals than unfavorable studies. Meta-analyses of industry versus non-industry funded trials consistently show that industry funding is associated with more favorable conclusions, even when the underlying data are similar. This “sponsorship bias” operates through selective publication, outcome reporting, and interpretation rather than outright falsification.

Independently funded trials like COURAGE, ORBITA, and ISCHEMIA have generally shown smaller benefits from intervention than earlier industry-funded work suggested. The contrast is not necessarily due to scientific misconduct but rather to the selection effects inherent in commercial research. Companies abandon research paths that appear unpromising; the trials that reach publication represent survivors of this selection process.

Why might earlier trials have overstated the benefits of coronary intervention?

Earlier stenting trials suffered from design limitations that inflated apparent benefits. Many compared stenting to angioplasty alone (balloon without stent) rather than to medical therapy, demonstrating only that stents were better than inferior alternatives. Others used soft endpoints like repeat revascularization—a measure influenced by physician decision-making and referral patterns—rather than hard endpoints like death or myocardial infarction.

Trial populations were often enriched for patients likely to benefit. Inclusion criteria specified high-risk features, unstable presentations, or severe ischemia. When later trials like ISCHEMIA enrolled broader populations reflecting real-world practice, the benefits diminished. What appeared to be treatment effects were partly patient-selection effects.

Control arm treatments also improved dramatically over time. Modern medical therapy—high-intensity statins, antiplatelet agents, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors—reduces cardiovascular events far more effectively than the treatments available when early stenting trials were conducted. Against this improved background therapy, the incremental benefit of intervention shrinks. Earlier trials compared stenting to inadequate medical therapy; contemporary trials compare it to optimal medical therapy.

What are the limitations of using chest pain relief as an endpoint in stenting trials?

Angina relief is subjective, susceptible to placebo effects, and influenced by factors unrelated to coronary blood flow. ORBITA demonstrated that sham procedures produce substantial symptom improvement, suggesting that much of the angina relief attributed to stenting in unblinded trials reflected expectation rather than physiology. Patients who believe their blockages have been fixed may perceive less chest pain regardless of actual coronary flow.

Symptom reporting also varies with follow-up methodology. Studies that actively solicit symptoms detect more angina than studies that wait for patients to volunteer complaints. Differences in follow-up protocols between treatment and control arms can create the appearance of differential symptom relief when the underlying experience is similar.

The focus on symptom relief obscures the more important question of whether intervention prevents heart attacks or extends life. Patients may reasonably accept a procedure for symptom control even if it does not reduce mortality, but they should understand that the primary benefit, if any, is palliative rather than preventive. Conflating symptom relief with event prevention has contributed to overestimates of intervention’s value.

Discover the tests and treatments that could save your life

Get our unbiased and comprehensive report on the latest techniques for heart disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

How has publication bias affected the perceived benefits of interventional cardiology?

Publication bias operates through multiple channels. Positive trials are more likely to be submitted, accepted, and highlighted than negative trials. Investigators may not even write up studies showing no benefit. Journals prefer novel, positive findings over confirmatory negative results. Conference presentations feature promising early data that sometimes disappear when full trial results emerge.

The cumulative effect distorts the apparent evidence base. If half of all trials show benefit and half show no benefit, but only the positive trials are published, the medical literature will show unanimous support for intervention. Meta-analyses that combine published studies will then overestimate true effects. Registries of clinical trials have helped identify unpublished studies, but many trials conducted before mandatory registration remain buried.

High-profile negative trials like COURAGE and ISCHEMIA generated controversy precisely because they contradicted the accumulated publication-biased literature. Interventional cardiologists who had built careers on the apparent benefits of stenting found their assumptions challenged by properly designed studies. The psychological difficulty of accepting that decades of practice may have been based on distorted evidence contributed to resistance and alternative interpretations of the findings.

What conflicts of interest are common among researchers studying catheterization and stenting?

Financial relationships between cardiovascular researchers and industry are pervasive. Principal investigators receive consulting fees, speaking honoraria, research grants, and equity interests from device and pharmaceutical companies. These relationships are typically disclosed in journal publications but rarely discussed in media coverage or patient communications.

The influence operates subtly rather than through explicit corruption. Investigators with industry relationships may unconsciously favor interpretations that align with sponsors’ interests. They may be invited to lead trials precisely because their prior work suggests favorable views. The career incentives of academic cardiology reward publication volume and industry collaboration, creating systemic bias even among well-intentioned researchers.

Guidelines committees present particular concern. The physicians who write recommendations about when to perform catheterization often have financial relationships with companies that profit from those recommendations. Professional societies have improved conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements but have not eliminated the underlying relationships. Patients and primary care physicians relying on guidelines should recognize that these documents reflect expert consensus shaped by structural conflicts.

How should I evaluate news reports about new stenting trials?

News coverage of medical research prioritizes novelty, drama, and simplicity over accuracy and context. Headlines may declare “breakthroughs” based on preliminary data, small sample sizes, or surrogate endpoints. The distinction between relative and absolute risk reduction often disappears, making modest benefits appear dramatic. Journalists rarely discuss conflicts of interest or methodological limitations.

Evaluate news reports by asking several questions. How large was the study? What was the comparison group? Was the study randomized and blinded? Who funded the research? What was the actual absolute difference in outcomes? Did the study measure events that matter to patients—death, heart attack—or surrogate endpoints like repeat procedures? Is this a single study or does it confirm prior research?

The most reliable approach is to read the original study abstract and look for the “number needed to treat”—how many patients must be treated for one to benefit. If this number is not reported, calculate it yourself from the absolute event rates. A treatment that reduces events from 10% to 8% requires treating 50 patients to prevent one event. Whether that benefit justifies the risks, costs, and inconvenience depends on individual circumstances.

What makes a catheterization study high quality versus low quality?

The hierarchy of evidence places randomized controlled trials above observational studies, and blinded trials above unblinded ones. Within randomized trials, quality depends on adequate randomization concealment (preventing investigators from predicting group assignments), complete follow-up (minimizing dropouts that could bias results), intention-to-treat analysis (analyzing patients according to their assigned group regardless of actual treatment), and pre-specified primary outcomes (preventing selective reporting of favorable results).

For catheterization research specifically, the control group treatment matters enormously. Trials comparing intervention to “usual care” may show benefits that would disappear against optimal medical therapy. The FAME trials established FFR-guided intervention as superior to angiography-guided intervention, but the comparison was between two interventional strategies rather than between intervention and conservative management (Tonino et al., 2009).

Sample size affects the ability to detect meaningful differences. Small trials may miss real benefits or may show apparently large effects due to random variation. Large trials like ISCHEMIA provide more reliable estimates. Publication in peer-reviewed journals with rigorous editorial standards provides some quality assurance, though it does not eliminate bias.

Why is it difficult to conduct blinded trials of catheterization procedures?

Blinding in procedural research requires that patients not know whether they received the active treatment. This is straightforward for pills—placebo and active medication can be made indistinguishable. For procedures, blinding requires sham operations. Patients must undergo the risks, discomfort, and recovery of a procedure knowing they might receive no treatment. This raises ethical concerns that have limited sham-controlled surgical research.

The interventional cardiology community debated ORBITA’s ethics extensively. Critics argued that subjecting patients to catheterization risks (albeit low) for a sham procedure was unjustifiable. Defenders countered that without placebo control, the field could never determine whether stenting actually worked for angina relief. The ongoing ORBITA-2 trial extends this methodology to larger populations and longer follow-up.

Practically, blinding requires procedural standardization that may not reflect real-world practice. ORBITA used fixed protocols and single operators. Multi-center trials face challenges ensuring comparable sham procedures across sites. These limitations restrict the generalizability of blinded procedural research, even when it is ethically approved and successfully conducted.

How do registry data compare to randomized trials for understanding catheterization outcomes?

Registries collect outcomes data from clinical practice without randomization. They reflect real-world patient populations, operator variability, and treatment patterns. Large registries like the NCDR CathPCI Registry capture millions of procedures, providing statistical power that randomized trials cannot match. However, registries cannot establish causation because treated and untreated patients differ in unmeasured ways.

The selection bias in registry data is profound. Patients who undergo catheterization differ from those treated medically—they may be sicker, more symptomatic, or more motivated to pursue aggressive treatment. Statistical techniques like propensity score matching attempt to adjust for these differences but can only control for measured variables. Unmeasured confounding limits causal inference.

Registries are valuable for assessing safety outcomes, identifying rare complications, and understanding practice patterns. They are less reliable for determining whether catheterization improves outcomes compared to alternatives. The combination of registry data for safety and randomized trials for efficacy provides the most complete picture.

Discover the tests and treatments that could save your life

Get our unbiased and comprehensive report on the latest techniques for heart disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

What important questions about catheterization have never been adequately studied?

The optimal role of diagnostic catheterization remains poorly defined. While trials have addressed whether intervention helps, few have examined whether the information from catheterization changes management in ways that improve outcomes. Patients often undergo catheterization, receive no intervention, and continue medical therapy they could have received without the invasive test.

Long-term outcomes beyond typical trial follow-up periods are understudied. Most trials follow patients for two to five years. Whether intervention benefits accumulate or diminish over decades remains uncertain. For younger patients making decisions about procedures that will affect the rest of their lives, this uncertainty is particularly relevant.

The interaction between patient preferences and outcomes deserves more attention. Shared decision-making is increasingly emphasized in guidelines, but research on how to conduct effective discussions, what information patients need, and how preferences should influence recommendations is limited. The psychological impact of catheterization—whether reassuring or anxiety-provoking—has received minimal systematic study.

How do surrogate endpoints like repeat revascularization affect trial interpretation?

Composite endpoints that combine death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization are standard in interventional cardiology trials. However, these outcomes are not equivalent. Death is permanent and universally important. Repeat revascularization is a treatment decision influenced by physician judgment, symptoms, and practice patterns. Combining them gives equal weight to very different events.

Trials driven by repeat revascularization differences may show statistically significant benefits that do not reflect mortality or heart attack prevention. IVUS-guided stenting trials have shown reduced target vessel failure driven largely by fewer repeat procedures, which may reflect better initial deployment rather than prevention of adverse cardiac events (Zhang et al., 2018). The clinical significance depends on which endpoints drive the difference.

Reading trials critically requires separating the components of composite endpoints. Ask what drove the difference. If death and myocardial infarction rates were similar between groups, the apparent benefit reflects softer outcomes. This does not mean the treatment is worthless—reducing the need for additional procedures has value—but the benefit is qualitatively different from preventing heart attacks.

What role do professional cardiology societies play in shaping how trial results are communicated?

Professional societies serve multiple functions that create potential conflicts. They develop clinical guidelines that influence practice patterns. They sponsor scientific meetings where trial results are presented. They publish journals where research is disseminated. They advocate for reimbursement policies that affect members’ incomes. These roles can align or conflict depending on circumstances.

When trials challenge existing practice patterns, societies face tension between scientific integrity and member interests. COURAGE generated heated debate at professional meetings. Some society leaders emphasized the trial’s limitations while minimizing its implications for practice. Others acknowledged that the findings should change how cardiologists approach stable disease. The discourse reflected both scientific disagreement and economic stakes.

Guidelines committees have improved conflict-of-interest management but still include members with industry relationships. The process of translating evidence into recommendations involves judgment calls where personal views and financial interests can influence conclusions. Patients and referring physicians should recognize guidelines as consensus documents shaped by evidence, expert opinion, and structural factors rather than as purely objective scientific summaries.

Conclusion

Evaluating catheterization evidence requires understanding both the science and the social context in which research is conducted and communicated. The landmark trials of the past two decades have established that for stable coronary disease, stenting provides modest symptom benefits and no clear advantage in preventing death or heart attacks compared to optimal medical therapy. This conclusion contradicts decades of practice based on less rigorous evidence.

The tools for critical evaluation apply beyond catheterization. Ask who funded the study, what the control group received, whether the trial was blinded, and what endpoints drove the results. Look for absolute rather than relative differences. Consider publication bias and conflicts of interest. Recognize that professional societies and media coverage introduce their own distortions.

For the ongoing debates these findings have generated, see Controversies and Limitations. For practical guidance on navigating catheterization decisions, see Deciding When to Proceed and Self-Advocacy and Navigation.