CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Two-Year Outcomes with a Magnetically Levitated Cardiac Pump in Heart Failure Intravascular Ultrasound to Guide Left Main Stem Intervention: A Sub-Study of the NOBLE Trial Atrial Fibrillation and the Prognostic Performance of Biomarkers in Heart Failure The year in cardiovascular medicine 2020: heart failure and cardiomyopathies Feasibility of Coronary Access and Aortic Valve Reintervention in Low-Risk TAVR Patients Nitrosative stress drives heart failure with preserved ejection fraction Impact of plaque components on no-reflow phenomenon after stent deployment in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a virtual histology-intravascular ultrasound analysis Clinical trial design and rationale of the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) investigational device exemption clinical study protocol Unexpectedly Low Natriuretic Peptide Levels in Patients With Heart Failure A three-vessel virtual histology intravascular ultrasound analysis of frequency and distribution of thin-cap fibroatheromas in patients with acute coronary syndrome or stable angina pectoris

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.