CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Feasibility of Coronary Access and Aortic Valve Reintervention in Low-Risk TAVR Patients Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement During Pregnancy Comparison of newer generation self-expandable vs. balloon-expandable valves in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial 3-Year Outcomes of the ULTIMATE Trial Comparing Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation The Year in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020: Valvular Heart Disease: Discussing the Year in Cardiovascular Medicine for 2020 in the field of valvular heart disease is Professor Helmut Baumgartner and Dr Javier Bermejo. Mark Nicholls reports Association of Effective Regurgitation Orifice Area to Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Volume Ratio With Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair OutcomesA Secondary Analysis of the COAPT Trial Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement Baseline Characteristics and Risk Profiles of Participants in the ISCHEMIA Randomized Clinical Trial Impact of myocardial fibrosis on left ventricular remodelling, recovery, and outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in different haemodynamic subtypes of severe aortic stenosis Risk of Coronary Obstruction and Feasibility of Coronary Access After Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Self-Expanding Evolut Valve: A Computed Tomography Simulation Study

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.