Literature DB >> 6361099

Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Comparability of entry characteristics and survival in randomized patients and nonrandomized patients meeting randomization criteria.

.   

Abstract

The Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) includes a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery and medical therapy in the management of patients with mild or moderate stable angina pectoris or free of angina but with a documented history of myocardial infarction. While 780 patients at 11 participating institutions entered the randomized trial, 1,315 patients at the same institutions met randomization criteria but declined participation in the randomized study; they constitute the "randomizable" patients. Half the randomized patients were assigned to surgery and half to the medical group. Of the 1,315 randomizable patients, 43% started with surgical therapy and 57% constitute the medical group. Follow-up periods average 64 months (range 46 to 92). The only entry characteristic in which the randomized and randomizable medical groups differ importantly is the extent of coronary artery disease, which is less extensive in the latter. The two surgical groups also differ in this respect, but with more extensive disease in the randomizable group. At 5 year follow-up, 24% of the medically-assigned randomized patients and 22% of the medically-started randomizable patients have had coronary bypass surgery. Survival in the medically-randomized and randomizable patient groups is similar in the aggregate (both 92% at 5 years) and also in all subgroups based on clinical classification, the number of diseased vessels, the presence of proximal left anterior descending coronary artery disease and ejection fraction. Survival for the surgically-assigned randomized patients and the surgically-started randomizable patients is also similar in the aggregate (95 and 94%, respectively) and in all subgroups. It is concluded that the randomized patients in CASS are not a special or atypical subset of those eligible for randomization. The data from the randomizable patients thus support and extend the inference of the generally very good survival of both the medically- and surgically-assigned patients of the randomized trial.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6361099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  13 in total

1.  Automatic quantification of left ventricular ejection fraction from gated blood pool SPECT.

Authors:  S D Van Kriekinge; D S Berman; G Germano
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 2.  To whom do the research findings apply?

Authors:  Curt D Furberg
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 3.  Outcomes for patients with the same disease treated inside and outside of randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Natasha Fernandes; Dianne Bryant; Lauren Griffith; Mohamed El-Rabbany; Nisha M Fernandes; Crystal Kean; Jacquelyn Marsh; Siddhi Mathur; Rebecca Moyer; Clare J Reade; John J Riva; Lyndsay Somerville; Neera Bhatnagar
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 4.  Systematic review to determine whether participation in a trial influences outcome.

Authors:  Gunn Elisabeth Vist; Kåre Birger Hagen; P J Devereaux; Dianne Bryant; Doris Tove Kristoffersen; Andrew David Oxman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-05-21

5.  Estimating the causal effect of randomization versus treatment preference in a doubly randomized preference trial.

Authors:  Sue M Marcus; Elizabeth A Stuart; Pei Wang; William R Shadish; Peter M Steiner
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2012-05-07

6.  Does HAART efficacy translate to effectiveness? Evidence for a trial effect.

Authors:  Prema Menezes; William C Miller; David A Wohl; Adaora A Adimora; Peter A Leone; William C Miller; Joseph J Eron
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Are racial and ethnic minorities less willing to participate in health research?

Authors:  David Wendler; Raynard Kington; Jennifer Madans; Gretchen Van Wye; Heidi Christ-Schmidt; Laura A Pratt; Otis W Brawley; Cary P Gross; Ezekiel Emanuel
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2005-12-06       Impact factor: 11.069

8.  Does random treatment assignment cause harm to research participants?

Authors:  Cary P Gross; Harlan M Krumholz; Gretchen Van Wye; Ezekiel J Emanuel; David Wendler
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 9.  Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate.

Authors:  Gunn Elisabeth Vist; Dianne Bryant; Lyndsay Somerville; Trevor Birminghem; Andrew D Oxman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2008-07-16

10.  Use of primary care electronic medical record database in drug efficacy research on cardiovascular outcomes: comparison of database and randomised controlled trial findings.

Authors:  Richard L Tannen; Mark G Weiner; Dawei Xie
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-01-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.