Repeat Revascularization Is a Faulty End Point for Clinical Trials
- 1 May 2012
- journal article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
- Vol. 5 (3), 249-250
- https://doi.org/10.1161/circoutcomes.112.965764
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Do Differences in Repeat Revascularization Explain the Antianginal Benefits of Bypass Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 2012
- Quality of Life after PCI with Drug-Eluting Stents or Coronary-Artery Bypass SurgeryNew England Journal of Medicine, 2011
- The Clinical Impact of Routine Angiographic Follow-Up in Randomized Trials of Drug-Eluting Stents: A Critical Assessment of “Oculostenotic” Reintervention in Patients With Intermediate LesionsJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2010
- Trial and Error: How to Avoid Commonly Encountered Limitations of Published Clinical TrialsJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2010
- Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trialsThe Lancet, 2009
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Severe Coronary Artery DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Does angiography six months after coronary intervention influence management and outcome?Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 1999