CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of In-Hospital Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest — The Right Timing or the Right Patients? Screening for Atrial Fibrillation With ECG: USPSTF Recommendation Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Interventions Across the Entire Spectrum of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials The Astronaut Cardiovascular Health and Risk Modification (Astro-CHARM) Coronary Calcium Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator Variation in Revascularization Practice and Outcomes in Asymptomatic Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Current Perspectives on Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Cardiovascular Disease: A White Paper by the JAHA Editors 2018 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Novel Therapies for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways

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.