Abstract
Current guidelines recommend percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ongoing stable angina symptoms despite optimal medical therapy (OMT), although trials have shown no reduction in death or myocardial infarction. The recently published ORBITA trial compared OMT + PCI with OMT + 'placebo' PCI in patients with angina and single-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD), and found no significant difference in treadmill exercise time between the two groups after six weeks. The trial concluded that invasive procedures can be assessed with placebo control while numerous editorials interpreted the trial as showing that PCI has no role in the management of stable angina. However, the highly selected patient population, low ischaemic burden and level of symptoms and high proportion of non-flow-limiting stenoses on invasive physiological testing mean that, while ground-breaking in terms of its methodology, ORBITA does not add to the current evidence base supporting ischaemia-guided revascularisation if symptoms are not controlled on medical therapy alone.