Two large trials, Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) and Occluded Artery Trial (OAT), found no benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal medical therapy in chronic stable coronary artery disease and chronic total occlusion.

We examined the stance of articles citing COURAGE and OAT to determine whether some authors continue to defend PCI despite this evidence, what persisting counterarguments are raised to express reservations, and whether specific characteristics of the citations are associated with reservations. We evaluated all citing articles entered in the Web of Science until February 1, 2008. Specific characteristics were recorded for each eligible citation, and a citation content analysis was performed. Counterarguments were categorized on participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.

Of 54 articles citing COURAGE and 33 articles citing OAT, 10 (19%) and 5 (15%), respectively, had an overall reserved stance. Alluded reservations included lack of power, eroded effects from crossover, selective inclusion and exclusion of specific types of patients, suboptimal clinical setting, use of bare-metal stents, suspiciously good results in the conservative treatment arm, and suboptimal outcome choices or definitions. Reserved articles were more likely than unreserved ones to have an interventional cardiologist as corresponding author (odds ratio 5.2, 95% confidence interval 1.6-17.1; P = .007) and to be commentaries focusing on one of these trials (odds ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 1.0-11.0; P = .05).

Despite strong randomized evidence, a fraction of the literature, mostly corresponded by interventional cardiologists, continues to raise reservations about recently contradicted indications of PCI.