CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

An EAPCI Expert Consensus Document on Ischaemia with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries in Collaboration with European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Coronary Pathophysiology & Microcirculation Endorsed by Coronary Vasomotor Disorders International Study Group Prognostic Value of SYNTAX Score in Patients With Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From the CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Evidence and Controversies Major trials in coronary intervention from 2018 Right ventricular stroke work correlates with outcomes in pediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension Subcutaneous Selatogrel Inhibits Platelet Aggregation in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Impact of Chronic Total Coronary Occlusion Location on Long-term Survival After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes Prognostic value of fibrinogen in patients with coronary artery disease and prediabetes or diabetes following percutaneous coronary intervention: 5-year findings from a large cohort study Association of Plaque Location and Vessel Geometry Determined by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography With Future Acute Coronary Syndrome–Causing Culprit Lesions

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.