CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Transition of Macrophages to Fibroblast-Like Cells in Healing Myocardial Infarction Myocardial Infarction Risk Stratification With a Single Measurement of High-Sensitivity Troponin I Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Colchicine after Myocardial Infarction Percutaneous Intervention for Concurrent Chronic Total Occlusions in Patients With STEMI: The EXPLORE Trial Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation disease: 11th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club Cardiac Shock Care Centers: JACC Review Topic of the Week Morphine and Cardiovascular Outcomes Among Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Coronary Angiography Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Alirocumab after Acute Coronary Syndrome According to Achieved Level of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Trial Epidemiology and Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome From Early Pharmacology to Recent Pharmacology Interventions in Acute Coronary Syndromes

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.