CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

SCAI Expert Consensus Statement Update on Best Practices for Transradial Angiography and Intervention Cardiac Sympathetic Denervation for Refractory Ventricular Arrhythmias Relationship of C-reactive protein reduction to cardiovascular event reduction following treatment with canakinumab: a secondary analysis from the CANTOS randomised controlled trial 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure Incidence, Treatment, and Outcomes of Coronary Perforation During Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Clinician’s Guide to Reducing Inflammation to Reduce Atherothrombotic Risk 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA /ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: Executive Summary : A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents

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.