Great stuff @FullMoonFever I wonder why the trial has been put...

Great stuff @FullMoonFever

I wonder why the trial has been put in with coronary revascularisation trials?

The other trials presented in the session:
- endoscopic vein harvest: patients having CABG have veins taken from their leg if needing multiple grafts. These are harvested by a long cut up the leg. An endoscopic approach (with a camera on a stick, like “keyhole” surgery) would be less invasive.
- multivessel revasularisation in diabetics - typically diabetics with multivessel coronary artery disease are treated with bypass surgery due to better long term outcomes. This trial will likely present long term results of patients undergoing stenting instead of bypass. As in do they still need bypass surgery or has stent technology caught up?
- aspirin vs ticagrelor after CABG - Usually patients take aspirin only after bypass, if outcomes are better with ticagrelor then this could change the prescribing practices of cardiac surgeons post-op.
- long term survival after polymer DES - there were a number of trials 5+ years ago regarding stent types (bare metal vs drug eluting) that changed stet choice during coronary intervention completely. This could do the same.
- And then last is the results of the MSB trial.

Why would the organisers put a stem cell trial (or any new treatment for that matter) with negative or neutral result with these large potentially practice changing trials?

I’d love to be there to hear the results, exciting times ahead.