CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

sST2 Predicts Outcome in Chronic Heart Failure Beyond NT−proBNP and High-Sensitivity Troponin T Effect of a Home-Based Wearable Continuous ECG Monitoring Patch on Detection of Undiagnosed Atrial Fibrillation The mSToPS Randomized Clinical Trial Impact of Statins on Cardiovascular Outcomes Following Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease In-Hospital Costs and Costs of Complications of Chronic Total Occlusion Angioplasty Insights From the OPEN-CTO Registry Improving the Design of Future PCI Trials for Stable Coronary Artery Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Level of Scientific Evidence Underlying the Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Association of CYP2C19 Loss-of-Function Alleles with Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events of Clopidogrel in Stable Coronary Artery Disease Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Meta-analysis Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of In-Hospital Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting The Year in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020: Coronary Intervention

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.