CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI for Stable Coronary Artery Disease Prognostic implications of ischemia with nonobstructive coronary arteries (INOCA): Understanding risks for improving treatment Left main coronary artery compression in pulmonary hypertension Meta-Analysis of Death and Myocardial Infarction in the DEFINE-FLAIR and iFR-SWEDEHEART Trials Updated clinical classification of pulmonary hypertension Retrospective Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary Artery Disease With Gray Zone Fractional Flow Reserve - COMFORTABLE Retrospective Study The EBC TWO Study (European Bifurcation Coronary TWO): A Randomized Comparison of Provisional T-Stenting Versus a Systematic 2 Stent Culotte Strategy in Large Caliber True Bifurcations OCT compared with IVUS in a coronary lesion assessment: the OPUS-CLASS study Pulmonary Artery Denervation: An Alternative Therapy for Pulmonary Hypertension Comparison of Coronary Intimal Plaques by Optical Coherence Tomography in Arteries With Versus Without Internal Running Vasa Vasorum

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.