| Literature DB >> 32703515 |
Guillaume Marquis-Gravel1, David J Moliterno2, Darrel P Francis3, Peter Jüni4, Yves D Rosenberg5, Bimmer E Claessen6, Robert J Mentz7, Roxana Mehran8, Donald E Cutlip9, Cynthia Chauhan10, Susan Quella10, Faiez Zannad11, Shaun G Goodman12.
Abstract
The role of percutaneous coronary interventions in addition to medical therapy for patients with stable coronary artery disease continues to be debated in routine clinical practice, despite more than 2 decades of randomized controlled trials. The residual uncertainty arises from particular challenges facing revascularization trials. Which endpoint do doctors care about, and which do patients care about? Which participants should be enrolled? What background medical therapy should we use? When is placebo control relevant? In this paper, we discuss how these questions can be approached and examine the merits and disadvantages of possible options. Engaging multiple stakeholders, including patients, researchers, regulators, and funders, to ensure the design elements are methodologically valid and clinically meaningful should be an aspirational goal in the development of future trials.Entities:
Keywords: coronary artery disease; methods; percutaneous coronary intervention; randomized controlled trials
Year: 2020 PMID: 32703515 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol ISSN: 0735-1097 Impact factor: 24.094