CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Left Atrial Appendage Closure versus Non-Warfarin Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation: 4-Year Outcomes of PRAGUE-17 Frailty and Clinical Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Older Adults With Atrial Fibrillation: A Cohort Study Patent Foramen Ovale Attributable Cryptogenic Embolism With Thrombophilia Has Higher Risk for Recurrence and Responds to Closure Alcohol consumption, cardiac biomarkers, and risk of atrial fibrillation and adverse outcomes Role of endothelial dysfunction in determining angina after percutaneous coronary intervention: Learning from pathophysiology to optimize treatment Stretch-induced sarcoplasmic reticulum calcium leak is causatively associated with atrial fibrillation in pressure-overloaded hearts Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Represents an Anti-Inflammatory Therapy Via Reduction of Shear Stress-Induced, Piezo-1-Mediated Monocyte Activation Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Residual Shunt After Patent Foramen Ovale Closure and Long-Term Stroke Recurrence: A Prospective Cohort Study Potential Candidates for Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Intervention After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Predictors and Prognosis

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.