CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

The conductive function of biopolymer corrects myocardial scar conduction blockage and resynchronizes contraction to prevent heart failure Coronary plaque redistribution after stent implantation is determined by lipid composition: A NIRS-IVUS analysis Outcomes 2 Years After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Low Surgical Risk Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Versus Aspirin in Relation to Vascular Risk in the COMPASS Trial Impact of epicardial adipose tissue on cardiovascular haemodynamics, metabolic profile, and prognosis in heart failure Dapagliflozin for treating chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction Echocardiographic Screening for Pulmonary Hypertension in Congenital Heart Disease: JACC Review Topic of the Week Anticoagulation in Concomitant Chronic Kidney Disease and Atrial Fibrillation: JACC Review Topic of the Week Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety Outcomes of Edoxaban in 8040 Women Versus 13 065 Men With Atrial Fibrillation in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Vulnerable Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque

Review ArticleVolume 74, Issue 25, December 2019

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Limitations of Repeat Revascularization as an Outcome Measure

P Lamelas, J Belardi, R Whitlock et al. Keywords: CABG; coronary artery disease; PCI; revascularization

ABSTRACT

Repeat revascularization is a commonly used outcome measure in trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and differences in this outcome often drive the relative risk for the primary endpoint. However, repeat revascularization as an outcome measure has important limitations that complicates its meaningful interpretation, including confounding by indication (driven by varying use of stress testing and thresholds for invasive angiography), differential likelihood of revascularization after graft versus stent failure, uncertainty of the prognostic impact of repeat revascularization, and patient preferences and appraisal of the import of repeat revascularization. Knowledge of these issues will result in better appreciation of the utility of repeat revascularization as a clinically meaningful outcome measure. The authors describe these issues and provide recommendations for the use and assessment of repeat revascularization as an endpoint when comparing different revascularization modalities.