CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

The year in cardiovascular medicine 2020: acute coronary syndromes and intensive cardiac care 2017 AHA/ACC Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With ST-Elevation and Non–ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures Clinical and genetic characteristics of pulmonary arterial hypertension in Lebanon Effect of a Restrictive vs Liberal Blood Transfusion Strategy on Major Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: The REALITY Randomized Clinical Trial Left Main Stenting: What We Have Learnt So Far? Cardiac Troponin Composition Characterization after Non ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Relation with Culprit Artery, Ischemic Time Window, and Severity of Injury Myocardial Inflammation Predicts Remodeling and Neuroinflammation After Myocardial Infarction Uptake of Drug-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Clinical Practice : An NCDR Registry to Practice Project Healed Culprit Plaques in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Comparison in prevalence, predictors, and clinical outcome of VSR versus FWR after acute myocardial infarction: The prospective, multicenter registry MOODY trial-heart rupture analysis
|<<... 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ...>>|

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.
>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 注册

> CBS 2019 会议日程

> CBS 2019 学术征集

> CBS 2019 热点

 CBSMD

> CBSMD 网站注册

> 教育中心

> 荐读文献

> Top 10 阅读文献

> 文献导读
CBS 2019 CBS 2019 主席团 教育中心 科研动态
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top