Literature DB >> 9185632

Angioplasty or surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: comparison of eligible registry and randomized patients in the EAST trial and influence of treatment selection on outcomes. Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial Investigators.

S B King1, H X Barnhart, A S Kosinski, W S Weintraub, N J Lembo, J Y Petersen, J S Douglas, E L Jones, J M Craver, R A Guyton, D C Morris, H A Liberman.   

Abstract

The Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial (EAST) showed that multivessel patients eligible for both percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary bypass surgery (CABG) had equivalent 3-year outcomes regarding survival, myocardial infarction, and major myocardial ischemia. Patients eligible for the trial who were not randomized because of physician or patient refusal were followed in a registry. This study compares the outcomes of the randomized and registry patients. Of the 842 eligible patients, 450 did not enter the trial. Their baseline features closely resembled those of the randomized patients and follow up was performed using the same methods. In the registry there was a bias toward selecting CABG in patients with 3-vessel disease (84%) and PTCA in patients with 2-vessel disease (54%). Three-year survival for the registry patients was 96.4%, which was better than the randomized patients, 93.4% (p = 0.044). Angina relief in the registry was equal for CABG and PTCA patients and was better for the PTCA registry (12.4%) than PTCA randomized patients (19.6%) (p = 0.079). Thus, the registry confirms that EAST is representative of all eligible patients and does not represent a low-risk subgroup. Since baseline differences were small, improved survival in the registry may be due to treatment selection. Physician judgment, even in patients judged appropriate for clinical trials, remains a potentially important predictor of outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9185632     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9149(97)00170-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  14 in total

Review 1.  A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods.

Authors:  Til Stürmer; Manisha Joshi; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Kenneth J Rothman; Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-10-13       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  2014 ACC/AHA guideline on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Developed in collaboration with the American College of Surgeons, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Vascular Medicine Endorsed by the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Authors:  Lee A Fleisher; Kirsten E Fleischmann; Andrew D Auerbach; Susan A Barnason; Joshua A Beckman; Biykem Bozkurt; Victor G Davila-Roman; Marie D Gerhard-Herman; Thomas A Holly; Garvan C Kane; Joseph E Marine; M Timothy Nelson; Crystal C Spencer; Annemarie Thompson; Henry H Ting; Barry F Uretsky; Duminda N Wijeysundera
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 3.  Update on the Management of Chronic Total Occlusions in Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  Kathleen Kearney; Ravi S Hira; Robert F Riley; Arun Kalyanasundaram; William L Lombardi
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 5.113

Review 4.  Randomized controlled trial versus comparative cohort study in verifying the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Yukiharu Todo; Noriaki Sakuragi
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Pulmonary embolism response teams.

Authors:  Nosheen Reza; David M Dudzinski
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2015-06

Review 6.  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

7.  Patient reactions to confidentiality, liability, and financial aspects of informed consent in cardiology research.

Authors:  Alice K Fortune-Greeley; N Chantelle Hardy; Li Lin; Joëlle Y Friedman; Janice S Lawlor; Lawrence H Muhlbaier; Mark A Hall; Kevin A Schulman; Jeremy Sugarman; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2010-01-12

8.  One year comparison of costs of coronary surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in the stent or surgery trial.

Authors:  W S Weintraub; E M Mahoney; Z Zhang; H Chu; J Hutton; M Buxton; J Booth; F Nugara; R H Stables; P Dooley; J Collinson; M Stuteville; N Delahunty; A Wright; M D Flather; E De Cock
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 5.994

9.  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 10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.