Plate Nº 31 · recorded November 14, 2026
Health & Medicine ResearchReported finding
Stents Don't Prevent Heart Attacks in Stable Patients, 25-Year Data Show
A 25-year follow-up of 959 COURAGE trial patients found early stents gave no clear edge over medicine alone in preventing death or heart attack in stable heart disease.
By Nathan Brooks3 min read606 words
In brief
- 25-year follow-up: 93.3% of stent-plus-medicine patients died or had a heart attack vs 91% on medicine alone — no statistically clear difference.
- Findings published in JAMA in November 2026 and presented at the American Heart Association's annual scientific meeting.
- Study covered 959 patient records from the COURAGE trial, with typical follow-up of 15 years.
- Researchers at University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus conducted the analysis.
- The study was a records review of veterans, not a new randomized trial — a stated limitation.
After 25 years, 93.3% of patients who got an early stent plus medicine had died or suffered a heart attack — barely different from the 91% in the medicine-only group. That 2.3-point gap, from a University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus analysis of 959 patient records, showed no statistically clear difference between the two approaches.
The findings landed in the medical journal JAMA in November 2026 and were presented at the American Heart Association's annual scientific meeting.
What did the researchers actually study?
The team examined health records from 959 people who had taken part in a major heart treatment trial called COURAGE. That original trial involved people with stable coronary artery disease — fatty deposits narrowing the arteries that supply the heart, but no immediate heart attack underway.
One group received a procedure to open the narrowed artery alongside medical treatment. The other started with medicines alone. Researchers tracked participants for a typical period of 15 years, with some records stretching to 25 years.
Those headline numbers need context. Nearly everyone in both groups eventually died or had a heart attack over such an unusually long window — that's what you'd expect when following people for a quarter-century, not a measure of short-term risk.
What is a stent, in plain English?
The procedure, known as angioplasty, works like this: doctors guide a small balloon into the narrowed artery and inflate it to widen the vessel. They often leave behind a tiny metal mesh tube — the stent — to keep blood flowing through the reopened passage.
It's a common and well-established tool. The question this study asks isn't whether stents work mechanically. It's whether placing them early, in stable patients, prevents future emergencies.
Are stents useless, then?
No — and the researchers are clear on that point. Opening a narrowed artery can reduce chest pain and improve daily comfort. During certain heart attacks, a stent can save lives outright.
What the study highlights is a distinction between treating symptoms and preventing future crises. A procedure that improves blood flow in one spot doesn't necessarily stop the wider disease process driving heart problems elsewhere.
Think of it like clearing one blocked lane on a highway. Traffic moves better right there, but it doesn't fix whatever keeps causing jams across the whole network.
How strong is the evidence?
There are real limitations worth knowing about. This was a later review of linked medical records, not a new randomized trial. The participants were veterans whose records were available, which may limit how far the results generalize. And some heart attacks may have been missed or incorrectly recorded in those records.
Still, the unusually long follow-up strengthens the overall picture: routine early artery-opening procedures don't offer a clear survival or heart-attack-prevention advantage for stable patients. Earlier studies hinted at this; a 25-year view makes it harder to argue the benefits simply appear late.
What should patients take from this?
The findings don't mean anyone should refuse a stent. Decisions still need to account for symptoms, other illnesses and individual medical advice — a patient with severe chest pain may benefit enormously from restored blood flow.
What the data does support is a conversation. If you have stable coronary artery disease and no urgent symptoms, asking your doctor whether medicines alone are a reasonable first step is a fair, evidence-backed question.
For now, the numbers speak plainly: over decades of tracking, the early procedure made no statistically clear dent in the combined risk of death or heart attack for this group of stable patients.
via knowridge.com (Source)
More from Nathan Brooks
Show full bio
Market editor covering companies, deals and strategy in general science news at SciBeat.
371 articles