CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

A Randomized Trial to Assess Regional Left Ventricular Function After Stent Implantation in Chronic Total Occlusion The REVASC Trial Guidelines in review: Comparison of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and the 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation A Randomized Trial Comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-Eluting Stents Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin vs. atorvastatin in lowering LDL cholesterol : A meta-analysis of trials with East Asian populations Qualitative Methodology in Cardiovascular Outcomes Research: A Contemporary Look Advances in Coronary No-Reflow Phenomenon-a Contemporary Review Long-Term Effect of Ultrathin-Strut Versus Thin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Subgroup Analysis of the BIOSCIENCE Randomized Trial Management of two major complications in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory: the no-reflow phenomenon and coronary perforations Clopidogrel or ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome patients treated with newer-generation drug-eluting stents: CHANGE DAPT Homeostatic Chemokines and Prognosis in Patients With 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.