Skip Navigation



European Heart Journal Advance Access published online on January 19, 2006
European Heart Journal, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi731
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
27/6/671    most recent
ehi731v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hordijk-Trion, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hordijk-Trion, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

European Heart Journal © The European Society of Cardiology 2006; all rights reserved
Received September 27, 2005
Revised December 9, 2005
Accepted December 23, 2005

Clinical research

Patients enrolled in coronary intervention trials are not representative of patients in clinical practice: results from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization

Marjo Hordijk-Trion 1, Mattie Lenzen 1, William Wijns 2, Peter de Jaegere 1, Maarten L. Simoons 1, Wilma J.M. Scholte op Reimer 1, Michel E. Bertrand 3, Nestor Mercado 1, Eric Boersma 1 *, and on behalf of the EHS-CR Investigators

1 Department of Cardiology and Clinical Epidemiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Room Ba563, Dr Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands
2 Cardiovascular Center, O.L.V. Hospital, Aalst, Belgium
3 Division of Cardiology, Lille University Heart Institute, Lille, France

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Eric Boersma, E-mail: h.boersma{at}erasmusmc.nl


  Abstract

Aims Revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease changed over the last two decades, favouring the number of patients treated by means of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) when compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed to compare these two competing revascularization techniques. Because of the strict enrolment criteria of RCTs in which highly selected patients are recruited, the applicability of the results may be limited in clinical practice. The current study evaluates to what extent patients in clinical practice were similar to those who participated in RCTs comparing PCI with CABG.

Methods and results Clinical characteristics and 1-year outcome of 4713 patients enrolled in the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization were compared with 8647 patients who participated in 14 major RCTs, comparing PCI with CABG. In addition, we analysed which proportion of survey patients would have disqualified for trial participation (n = 3033, 64%), aiming at identifying differences between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible survey patients. In general, important differences were observed between trial participants and survey patients. Patients in clinical practice were older, more often had comorbid conditions, single-vessel disease, and left main stem stenosis when compared with trial participants. Almost identical differences were observed between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible survey patients. In clinical practice, PCI was the treatment of choice, even in patients who were trial-ineligible (46% PCI, 26% CABG, 28% medical). PCI remained the preferred treatment option in patients with multi-vessel disease (57% in trial-eligible and 40% in trial-ineligible patients, respectively, P < 0.001); yet, the risk profile of patients treated by PCI was better than that for patients treated either by CABG or by medical therapy. In the RCTs, there was no mortality difference between PCI and CABG. In clinical practice, however, we observed 1-year unadjusted survival benefit for PCI vs. CABG (2.9 vs. 5.4%, P < 0.001). Survival benefit was only observed in trial-ineligible patients (3.3 vs. 6.2%, P < 0.001).

Conclusion Many patients in clinical practice were not represented in RCTs. Moreover, only 36% of these patients were considered eligible for participating in a trial comparing PCI with CABG. We demonstrated that RCTs included younger patients with a better cardiovascular risk profile when compared with patients in everyday clinical practice. This study highlights the disparity between patients in clinical practice and patients in whom the studies that provide the evidence for treatment guidelines are performed.

Keywords: Euro Heart Survey; Randomized controlled trials; PCI; CABG.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CirculationHome page
M. Hamilos, O. Muller, T. Cuisset, A. Ntalianis, G. Chlouverakis, G. Sarno, O. Nelis, J. Bartunek, M. Vanderheyden, E. Wyffels, et al.
Long-Term Clinical Outcome After Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Treatment in Patients With Angiographically Equivocal Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis
Circulation, October 13, 2009; 120(15): 1505 - 1512.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Coll Cardiol IntvHome page
N. Kukreja, Y. Onuma, H. M. Garcia-Garcia, J. Daemen, R. van Domburg, P. W. Serruys, and on behalf of the Interventional cardiologists of t
The Risk of Stent Thrombosis in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Treated With Bare-Metal and Drug-Eluting Stents
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., June 1, 2009; 2(6): 534 - 541.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
B. R. Osswald, V. Gegouskov, D. Badowski-Zyla, U. Tochtermann, G. Thomas, S. Hagl, and E. H. Blackstone
Overestimation of aortic valve replacement risk by EuroSCORE: implications for percutaneous valve replacement
Eur. Heart J., January 1, 2009; 30(1): 74 - 80.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.Home page
A. J. Rastan, E. Boudriot, V. Falk, A. P. Kappetein, M. A. Borger, P. W. Serruys, G. Schuler, and F. W. Mohr
Frequency and pattern of de-novo three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease; insights from single center enrolment in the SYNTAX study
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., August 1, 2008; 34(2): 376 - 383.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
J. J. Visser, M. R. H. M. van Sambeek, T. H. Hamza, M. G. M. Hunink, and J. L. Bosch
Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Endovascular Repair versus Open Surgery Systematic Review
Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 122 - 129.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
J. W. Eikelboom and M. O'Donnell
Pexelizumab Does Not "Complement" Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
JAMA, January 3, 2007; 297(1): 91 - 92.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
A. Breeman, M. E. Bertrand, J. P. Ottervanger, S. Hoeks, M. Lenzen, U. Sechtem, V. Legrand, M.-J. de Boer, W. Wijns, E. Boersma, et al.
Diabetes does not influence treatment decisions regarding revascularization in patients with stable coronary artery disease.
Diabetes Care, September 1, 2006; 29(9): 2003 - 2011.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.