Surveillance Stress Testing "POST-PCI" — A Future Class III Recommendation?

this editorial critiques the utility of routine surveillance stress testing in asymptomatic patients post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), citing findings from the POST-PCI trial. The trial showed no significant difference in composite outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina) between patients undergoing routine 1-year stress testing and those receiving standard care, despite higher rates of angiography and revascularization in the testing group. The author argues that current evidence supports discontinuing routine stress testing in asymptomatic PCI patients, aligning with guidelines that emphasize intravascular imaging and aggressive secondary prevention instead. The piece calls for a future Class III recommendation against this practice.

this editorial critiques the utility of routine surveillance stress testing in asymptomatic patients post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), citing findings from the POST-PCI trial. The trial showed no significant difference in composite outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina) between patients undergoing routine 1-year stress testing and those receiving standard care, despite higher rates of angiography and revascularization in the testing group. The author argues that current evidence supports discontinuing routine stress testing in asymptomatic PCI patients, aligning with guidelines that emphasize intravascular imaging and aggressive secondary prevention instead. The piece calls for a future Class III recommendation against this practice.