CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Management of Patients With NSTE-ACS: A Comparison of the Recent AHA/ACC and ESC Guidelines Percutaneous Support Devices for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Coronary flow velocity reserve predicts adverse prognosis in women with angina and noobstructive coronary artery disease: resultsfrom the iPOWER study 稳定性冠心病诊断与治疗指南 Left Ventricular Assist Devices for Lifelong Support 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Cardiovascular Biomarkers and Imaging in Older Adults: JACC Council Perspectives Guiding Principles for Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Statin Safety and Associated Adverse Events: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Non-cardiac surgery in patients with coronary artery disease: risk evaluation and periprocedural management

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.