冠状动脉血运重建时间:中介分析研究方法。

CMAJ open Pub Date : 2022-12-13 Print Date: 2022-10-01 DOI:10.9778/cmajo.20210183
Boris Sobolev, Lisa Kuramoto
{"title":"冠状动脉血运重建时间:中介分析研究方法。","authors":"Boris Sobolev, Lisa Kuramoto","doi":"10.9778/cmajo.20210183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), established in trials, may not be generalizable to populations in which the method of treatment determines the time to treatment. We sought to describe the methodology of a population-based observational study for assessing how changes in time to treatment may affect the comparative effectiveness of these 2 methods of coronary revascularization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We propose a framework of causal mediation analysis to compare the outcomes of choosing CABG over PCI, if patients selected for either method waited the same amount of time had they undergone a PCI. We will include patients who underwent a first-time, nonurgent isolated CABG or single-session PCI for multivessel or left main coronary artery disease from January 2001 to December 2016, in British Columbia. We will use absolute risk difference as a measure of the total effect of choosing CABG over PCI and partition it into the direct effect of the treatment choice and the effect mediated by the treatment-specific timing.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Understanding how time to treatment mediates the relation between method of revascularization and outcomes will have implications for treatment selection, resource allocation and planning benchmarks. Findings on the benefits and risks of performing PCI or CABG within a certain time will guide multidisciplinary teams in determining the appropriate revascularization method for individual patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":10432,"journal":{"name":"CMAJ open","volume":"10 4","pages":"E1052-E1058"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d7/cf/cmajo.20210183.PMC9828946.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Time of coronary revascularization: methodology of a mediation analysis study.\",\"authors\":\"Boris Sobolev, Lisa Kuramoto\",\"doi\":\"10.9778/cmajo.20210183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), established in trials, may not be generalizable to populations in which the method of treatment determines the time to treatment. We sought to describe the methodology of a population-based observational study for assessing how changes in time to treatment may affect the comparative effectiveness of these 2 methods of coronary revascularization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We propose a framework of causal mediation analysis to compare the outcomes of choosing CABG over PCI, if patients selected for either method waited the same amount of time had they undergone a PCI. We will include patients who underwent a first-time, nonurgent isolated CABG or single-session PCI for multivessel or left main coronary artery disease from January 2001 to December 2016, in British Columbia. We will use absolute risk difference as a measure of the total effect of choosing CABG over PCI and partition it into the direct effect of the treatment choice and the effect mediated by the treatment-specific timing.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Understanding how time to treatment mediates the relation between method of revascularization and outcomes will have implications for treatment selection, resource allocation and planning benchmarks. Findings on the benefits and risks of performing PCI or CABG within a certain time will guide multidisciplinary teams in determining the appropriate revascularization method for individual patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CMAJ open\",\"volume\":\"10 4\",\"pages\":\"E1052-E1058\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d7/cf/cmajo.20210183.PMC9828946.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CMAJ open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20210183\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CMAJ open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20210183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)相对于经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的优势已在试验中得到证实,但对于治疗方法决定治疗时间的人群来说,这种优势可能并不具有普遍性。我们试图描述一项基于人群的观察性研究的方法,以评估治疗时间的变化会如何影响这两种冠状动脉血运重建方法的比较效果:我们提出了一个因果中介分析框架,以比较选择 CABG 和 PCI 的结果,如果选择这两种方法的患者等待 PCI 的时间相同。我们将纳入 2001 年 1 月至 2016 年 12 月期间在不列颠哥伦比亚省首次接受非急诊孤立 CABG 或单次 PCI 治疗多支血管或左主干冠状动脉疾病的患者。我们将使用绝对风险差异来衡量选择 CABG 而非 PCI 的总效应,并将其划分为治疗选择的直接效应和治疗特异性时间介导的效应:解读:了解治疗时间如何介导血管再通方法与预后之间的关系,将对治疗选择、资源分配和规划基准产生影响。关于在一定时间内进行 PCI 或 CABG 的益处和风险的研究结果将指导多学科团队为患者确定合适的血管再通方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Time of coronary revascularization: methodology of a mediation analysis study.

Background: The advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), established in trials, may not be generalizable to populations in which the method of treatment determines the time to treatment. We sought to describe the methodology of a population-based observational study for assessing how changes in time to treatment may affect the comparative effectiveness of these 2 methods of coronary revascularization.

Methods: We propose a framework of causal mediation analysis to compare the outcomes of choosing CABG over PCI, if patients selected for either method waited the same amount of time had they undergone a PCI. We will include patients who underwent a first-time, nonurgent isolated CABG or single-session PCI for multivessel or left main coronary artery disease from January 2001 to December 2016, in British Columbia. We will use absolute risk difference as a measure of the total effect of choosing CABG over PCI and partition it into the direct effect of the treatment choice and the effect mediated by the treatment-specific timing.

Interpretation: Understanding how time to treatment mediates the relation between method of revascularization and outcomes will have implications for treatment selection, resource allocation and planning benchmarks. Findings on the benefits and risks of performing PCI or CABG within a certain time will guide multidisciplinary teams in determining the appropriate revascularization method for individual patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Validity of diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Canadian administrative health data: a multiprovince, population-based cohort study. Trends in attachment to a primary care provider in Ontario, 2008-2018: an interrupted time-series analysis. Identifying clusters of coexisting conditions and outcomes among adults admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia: a multicentre cohort study. Is the number of ideal cardiovascular health metrics in midlife associated with lower risk of cancer? Evidence from 3 European prospective cohorts. Trends in antihypertensive drug utilization in British Columbia, 2004-2019: a descriptive study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1