Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,025

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Open access
Al-Lamee, Rasha, Thompson, David, Dehbi, Hakim-Moulay, Sen, Sayan, Tang, Kare, Davies, John, Keeble, Thomas, Mielewczik, Michael, Kaprielian, Raffi, Malik, Iqbal S, Nijjer, Sukhjinder S, Petraco, Ricardo, Cook, Christopher, Ahmad, Yousif, Howard, James, Baker, Christopher, Sharp, Andrew, Gerber, Robert, Talwar, Suneel, Assomull, Ravi, Mayet, Jamil, Wensel, Roland, Collier, David, Shun-Shin, Matthew, Thom, Simon A, Davies, Justin E, Francis, Darrel P, Al-Lamee, Rasha, Thompson, David, Sen, Sayan, Tang, Kare, Davies, John, Keeble, Thomas, Kaprielian, Raffi, Malik, Iqbal S, Nijjer, Sukhjinder S, Petraco, Ricardo, Cook, Christopher, Ahmad, Yousif, Howard, James, Shun-Shin, Matthew, Sethi, Amarjit, Baker, Christopher, Sharp, Andrew, Ramrakha, Punit, Gerber, Robert, Talwar, Suneel, Assomull, Ravi, Foale, Rodney, Mayet, Jamil, Wensel, Roland, Thom, Simon A, Davies, Justin E, Francis, Darrel P, Khamis, Ramzi, Hadjiloizou, Nearchos, Khan, Masood, Kooner, Jaspal, Bellamy, Michael, Mikhail, Ghada, Clifford, Piers, O'Kane, Peter, Levy, Terry, Swallow, Rosie·2018·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND Symptomatic relief is the primary goal of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable angina and is commonly observed clinically. However, there is no evidence from blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trials to show its efficacy. METHODS ORBITA is a blinded, multicentre randomised trial of PCI versus a placebo procedure for angina relief that was done at five study sites in the UK. We enrolled patients with severe (≥70%) single-vessel stenoses. After enrolment, patients received 6 weeks of medication optimisation. Patients then had pre-randomisation assessments with cardiopulmonary exercise testing, symptom questionnaires, and dobutamine stress echocardiography. Patients were randomised 1:1 to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure by use of an automated online randomisation tool. After 6 weeks of follow-up, the assessments done before randomisation were repeated at the final assessment. The primary endpoint was difference in exercise time increment between groups. All analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle and the study population contained all participants who underwent randomisation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02062593. FINDINGS ORBITA enrolled 230 patients with ischaemic symptoms. After the medication optimisation phase and between Jan 6, 2014, and Aug 11, 2017, 200 patients underwent randomisation, with 105 patients assigned PCI and 95 assigned the placebo procedure. Lesions had mean area stenosis of 84·4% (SD 10·2), fractional flow reserve of 0·69 (0·16), and instantaneous wave-free ratio of 0·76 (0·22). There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of exercise time increment between groups (PCI minus placebo 16·6 s, 95% CI -8·9 to 42·0, p=0·200). There were no deaths. Serious adverse events included four pressure-wire related complications in the placebo group, which required PCI, and five major bleeding events, including two in the PCI group and three in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION In patients with medically treated angina and severe coronary stenosis, PCI did not increase exercise time by more than the effect of a placebo procedure. The efficacy of invasive procedures can be assessed with a placebo control, as is standard for pharmacotherapy. FUNDING NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Foundation for Circulatory Health, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, Philips Volcano, NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32714-9

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,025

Metadata

Authors
Al-Lamee, R., Thompson, D., Dehbi, H.-M., Sen, S., Tang, K., Davies, J., Keeble, T., Mielewczik, M., Kaprielian, R., Malik, I. S., Nijjer, S. S., Petraco, R., Cook, C., Ahmad, Y., Howard, J., Baker, C., Sharp, A., Gerber, R., Talwar, S., Assomull, R., Mayet, J., Wensel, R., Collier, D., Shun-Shin, M., Thom, S. A., Davies, J. E., Francis, D. P., Al-Lamee, R., Thompson, D., Sen, S., Tang, K., Davies, J., Keeble, T., Kaprielian, R., Malik, I. S., Nijjer, S. S., Petraco, R., Cook, C., Ahmad, Y., Howard, J., Shun-Shin, M., Sethi, A., Baker, C., Sharp, A., Ramrakha, P., Gerber, R., Talwar, S., Assomull, R., Foale, R., Mayet, J., Wensel, R., Thom, S. A., Davies, J. E., Francis, D. P., Khamis, R., Hadjiloizou, N., Khan, M., Kooner, J., Bellamy, M., Mikhail, G., Clifford, P., O'Kane, P., Levy, T., & Swallow, R.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-01
Volume
391
Issue
10115
Pages
31-40
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2766491028
Cited by
1,025
References
4
FWCI
117.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32714-9
The paper
Al-Lamee, R., Thompson, D., Dehbi, H.-M., Sen, S., Tang, K., Davies, J., Keeble, T., Mielewczik, M., Kaprielian, R., Malik, I. S., Nijjer, S. S., Petraco, R., Cook, C., Ahmad, Y., Howard, J., Baker, C., Sharp, A., Gerber, R., Talwar, S., . . . Swallow, R. (2018). Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32714-9

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.