CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Late kidney injury after transcatheter aortic valve replacement Dapagliflozin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Cardio-Oncology: Vascular and Metabolic Perspectives: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Plasma Ionized Calcium and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: 106 774 Individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study Heart Failure Outcomes With Volume-Guided Management Efficacy of Ertugliflozin on Heart Failure–Related Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Established Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Results of the VERTIS CV Trial Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation, Like Fire and Fury Adjunctive Cilostazol to Dual Antiplatelet Therapy to Enhance Mobilization of Endothelial Progenitor Cell in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled EPISODE Trial Impact of intravascular ultrasound on the long-term clinical outcomes in the treatment of coronary ostial lesions Design and rationale for a randomised comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in selected patients with left main coronary artery disease: the EXCEL trial

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.