No abstract

National Cardiac Societies document reviewers: listed in Addenda The content of these European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Guidelines has been published for personal and educational use only. No commercial use is authorized. No part of the ESC Guidelines may be translated or reproduced in any form without written permission from the ESC. Permission can be obtained upon submission of a written request to Oxford University Press, the publisher of the European Heart Journal and the party authorized to handle such permissions on behalf of the ESC.

Członków Komisji Europejskiego Towarzystwa Kardiologicznego ds. Wytycznych dotyczących Praktyki Klinicznej (CPG), Komisji Europejskiego Stowarzyszenia Chirurgii Serca i Klatki Piersiowej ds. Wytycznych (EACTS Clinical Guidelines Committee) oraz recenzentów dokumentu ze strony narodowych towarzystw kardiologicznych wchodzących w skład ESC wymieniono w Dodatku.

Propensity score (PS) methods offer certain advantages over more traditional regression methods to control for confounding by indication in observational studies. Although multivariable regression models adjust for confounders by modelling the relationship between covariates and outcome, the PS methods estimate the treatment effect by modelling the relationship between confounders and treatment assignment. Therefore, methods based on the PS are not limited by the number of events, and their use may be warranted when the number of confounders is large, or the number of outcomes is small. The PS is the probability for a subject to receive a treatment conditional on a set of baseline characteristics (confounders). The PS is commonly estimated using logistic regression, and it is used to match patients with similar distribution of confounders so that difference in outcomes gives unbiased estimate of treatment effect. This review summarizes basic concepts of the PS matching and provides guidance in implementing matching and other methods based on the PS, such as stratification, weighting and covariate adjustment.

As compared with the use of saphenous-vein grafts, the use of radial-artery grafts for CABG resulted in a lower rate of adverse cardiac events and a higher rate of patency at 5 years of follow-up. (Funded by Weill Cornell Medicine and others.).

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine n engl j med nejm.org BACKGROUNDThe use of bilateral internal thoracic (mammary) arteries for coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) may improve long-term outcomes as compared with the use of a single internal-thoracic-artery plus vein grafts. METHODSWe randomly assigned patients scheduled for CABG to undergo single or bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafting in 28 cardiac surgical centers in seven countries. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 10 years. The composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke was a secondary outcome. Interim analyses were prespecified at 5 years of follow-up. RESULTSA total of 3102 patients were enrolled; 1554 were randomly assigned to undergo single internal-thoracic-artery grafting (the single-graft group) and 1548 to undergo bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafting (the bilateral-graft group). At 5 years of follow-up, the rate of death was 8.7% in the bilateral-graft group and 8.4% in the single-graft group (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.32; P = 0.77), and the rate of the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke was 12.2% and 12.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.17; P = 0.69). The rate of sternal wound complication was 3.5% in the bilateralgraft group versus 1.9% in the single-graft group (P = 0.005), and the rate of sternal reconstruction was 1.9% versus 0.6% (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONSAmong patients undergoing CABG, there was no significant difference between those receiving single internal-thoracic-artery grafts and those receiving bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafts with regard to mortality or the rates of cardiovascular events at 5 years of follow-up. There were more sternal wound complications with bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafting than with single internal-thoracicartery grafting. Ten-year follow-up is ongoing. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation and others; ART Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN46552265.)

No abstract

No abstract