Why the study?
Does PTCA compared to CABG improve outcomes in patients comparable to RCT settings?
Does PTCA compared to CABG improve outcomes in patients comparable to RCT settings?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Routine health service data can complement RCTs, showing similar 1-year outcomes for PTCA and CABG in a real-world population.
AIM: To compare outcomes of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for a population stemming from routinely collected data, in order to assess the merits of such data sources as a complement, and possible enhancement, to randomized controlled trial results. METHODS AND RESULTS: A population of Scottish patients were taken from a routine discharge summary and from this data source patients comparable to those from randomized controlled trial settings were identified. Between 1989 and 1995, 12 238 pseudo randomized controlled trial patients were identified from the routine data set, of which 3714 (30.3%) received PTCA and 8524 (69.7%) received CABG. The baseline characteristics of the pseudo randomized controlled trial and randomized controlled trial patients were similar. The evidence from both the randomized controlled trials and routine data indicate that for 1 year follow-up the risk of cardiac death and/or non-fatal myocardial infarction is not significantly different between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The outcomes expected of PTCA and CABG following trial evidence have been realized in the routine data which are representative of a complete, non-selective population. Due to the size of the routine data set it would be possible to set up hypotheses for potential subgroup effects at the outset.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jim Lewsey (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: