Debate

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-E-25-00019

Colchicine benefits are overestimated and current recommendations are too strong: pros and cons

Kevin R. Bainey1,2, MD, MSc, FACC, FRCPC; Xavier Rossello3,4,5, MD, PhD

Inflammation is a key determinant for the development and progression of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), strongly contributing to the so-called “residual cardiovascular (CV) risk”. A large number of clinical trials investigating different agents were conducted before colchicine emerged as the first anti-inflammatory drug to be recommended by guidelines for the management of acute (ACS) and chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). However, despite a strong mechanistic rationale and supporting clinical data, colchicine has never received a Class I recommendation. Recently, a large randomised clinical trial (RCT) in patients who had myocardial infarction (MI) has yielded neutral results, which are not consistent with previous findings. This discrepancy has raised concerns about the true clinical benefit of colchicine in patients with ASCVD, particularly in light of heterogeneity across trials and potential safety concerns. Whether current guideline recommendations are entirely justified or the benefits of colchicine have been overestimated remains a matter of debate.

Pros

Kevin R. Bainey, MD, MSc, FRCPC, FACC

In patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome, evidence-based secondary prevention pharmacotherapeutic agents have reduced cardiovascular death or MI. Yet, despite these...

Sign in to read
the full article

Forgot your password?
No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com

Volume 21 Number 13
Jul 7, 2025
Volume 21 Number 13
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00606 Jan 1, 2024
Targeting inflammation in atherosclerosis: overview, strategy and directions
Waksman R et al
free

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-25-00018 Jun 2, 2025
Using pericoronary fat attenuation to guide management after coronary interventions
Antoniades C and Chan K
free

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00999 Apr 20, 2021
Lipid-lowering therapy and percutaneous coronary interventions
Koskinas K et al
free

10.4244/EIJV14I6A109 Aug 24, 2018
Acute coronary syndromes: time to go further
Gonzalo N
free

Research Correspondence

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-01073 Jul 1, 2024
Paclitaxel-coated balloons for vulnerable lipid-rich plaques
van Veelen A et al
open access

10.4244/EIJV15I9A138 Oct 4, 2019
Ruptured and healed atherosclerotic plaques: breaking bad?
Amabile N and Veugeois A
free

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-25-00002 Feb 17, 2025
The future of complete revascularisation: prioritising imaging-guided non-culprit lesion assessment
Diletti R and Elscot J
free

Debate

10.4244/EIJ-E-24-00004 Mar 4, 2024
Prophylactic stenting of vulnerable plaques: pros and cons
Park D et al
free
Trending articles
172.05

Focus article

10.4244/EIJY19M08_01 Jan 17, 2020
EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion – an update
Glikson M et al
free
42

Original Research

10.4244/EIJ-D-25-00331 May 21, 2025
One-month dual antiplatelet therapy followed by prasugrel monotherapy at a reduced dose: the 4D-ACS randomised trial
Jang Y et al
open access
26.5

Expert Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00535 May 5, 2025
Catheter-based techniques for pulmonary embolism treatment
Costa F et al
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 9.5
2024 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2025)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2025 Europa Group - All rights reserved