CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Level of Scientific Evidence Underlying the Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Non-invasive detection of coronary inflammation using computed tomography and prediction of residual cardiovascular risk (the CRISP CT study): a post-hoc analysis of prospective outcome data A Novel Familial Cardiac Arrhythmia Syndrome with Widespread ST-Segment Depression Disrupting Fellow Education Through Group Texting: WhatsApp in Fellow Education? Impact of Coronary Lesion Complexity in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: One-Year Outcomes From the Large, Multicentre e-Ultimaster Registry Management of Patients With NSTE-ACS: A Comparison of the Recent AHA/ACC and ESC Guidelines Appropriate Use Criteria and Health Status Outcomes Following Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the OPEN-CTO Registry Randomized Comparison Between Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Stent: Multimodality Imaging Through 3 Years
|<<... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ...>>|

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.
>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top