CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Randomized Trial of Stents Versus Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: 5-Year Outcomes of the PRECOMBAT Study Clopidogrel Pharmacogenetics: State-of-the-Art Review and the TAILOR-PCI Study A pragmatic approach to the use of inotropes for the management of acute and advanced heart failure: An expert panel consensus Effect of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Five-Year Follow-Up of the IVUS-XPL Randomized Trial Vaccination Trends in Patients With Heart Failure - Insights From Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cardiac contractility modulation in patients with systolic heart failure: rationale, design, and baseline patient characteristics. Sildenafil for improving outcomes in patients with corrected valvular heart disease and persistent pulmonary hypertension: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial Angiotensin–neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program Nationwide Perspectives and Recommendations: A JACC: Heart Failure Position Paper 中国心力衰竭诊断和治疗指南2018

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.