CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

光学相关断层扫描

Abstract

Recommended Article

Randomized comparison of stent strut coverage following angiography- or optical coherence tomography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention Vascular response and healing profile of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for percutaneous treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions: A one-year optical coherence tomography analysis from the GHOST-CTO registry Nonculprit Lesion Plaque Morphology in Patients With ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Results From the COMPLETE Trial Optical Coherence Tomography Substudys Assessment and Quantitation of Stent Results by Intracoronary Optical Coherence Tomography Drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndrome - the Activity of Platelets after Inhibition and Cardiovascular Events: Optical Coherence Tomography (APICE OCT) study Randomized Comparison Between Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Stent: Multimodality Imaging Through 3 Years A Survey on Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque Tissue Characterization in Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography Superficial Calcium Fracture After PCI as Assessed by OCT

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.