Randomized clinical trials in interventional cardiology

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Changes in practice patterns are the result of multiple factors including physician experience, participation in live demonstration courses, referral biases and expectations, results of single-center studies, multicenter registries, and randomized clinical trials. The relative importance of each of these components varies substantially. The scientific validity is strongest when supported by randomized trial data, but it must be remembered that these trials can be interpreted in multiple ways depending in part on the biases and experience of the interpreter. This issue has been exemplified by the interpretation of the randomized clinical trials of directional coronary atherectomy (DCA). Interpretation of randomized clinical trials may be difficult. It includes consideration of the design of the trial, the end points used (either single or combined), the power of the study, and the patient population studied. The issue of statistical significance versus clinical significance must also be kept in mind. Recently, equivalence testing has become more sophisticated and more popular. With this design, superiority cannot be proved or assessed; rather, two therapies can be considered equivalent if the difference in outcome falls within predefined boundaries. Usage patterns will then be based on ease of use, patient acceptance, and economic considerations, among others. Recent randomized clinical trials have included DCA, rotational atherectomy, and intracoronary stents.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)348-354
Number of pages7
JournalCurrent opinion in cardiology
Volume13
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1998

Fingerprint

Coronary Atherectomy
Cardiology
Randomized Controlled Trials
Multicenter Studies
Stents
Registries
Referral and Consultation
Economics
Physicians
Population
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Randomized clinical trials in interventional cardiology. / Holmes, David.

In: Current opinion in cardiology, Vol. 13, No. 5, 01.01.1998, p. 348-354.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d8ce92cf2ab943509c01207272e920f1,
title = "Randomized clinical trials in interventional cardiology",
abstract = "Changes in practice patterns are the result of multiple factors including physician experience, participation in live demonstration courses, referral biases and expectations, results of single-center studies, multicenter registries, and randomized clinical trials. The relative importance of each of these components varies substantially. The scientific validity is strongest when supported by randomized trial data, but it must be remembered that these trials can be interpreted in multiple ways depending in part on the biases and experience of the interpreter. This issue has been exemplified by the interpretation of the randomized clinical trials of directional coronary atherectomy (DCA). Interpretation of randomized clinical trials may be difficult. It includes consideration of the design of the trial, the end points used (either single or combined), the power of the study, and the patient population studied. The issue of statistical significance versus clinical significance must also be kept in mind. Recently, equivalence testing has become more sophisticated and more popular. With this design, superiority cannot be proved or assessed; rather, two therapies can be considered equivalent if the difference in outcome falls within predefined boundaries. Usage patterns will then be based on ease of use, patient acceptance, and economic considerations, among others. Recent randomized clinical trials have included DCA, rotational atherectomy, and intracoronary stents.",
author = "David Holmes",
year = "1998",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00001573-199809000-00007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "348--354",
journal = "Current Opinion in Cardiology",
issn = "0268-4705",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized clinical trials in interventional cardiology

AU - Holmes, David

PY - 1998/1/1

Y1 - 1998/1/1

N2 - Changes in practice patterns are the result of multiple factors including physician experience, participation in live demonstration courses, referral biases and expectations, results of single-center studies, multicenter registries, and randomized clinical trials. The relative importance of each of these components varies substantially. The scientific validity is strongest when supported by randomized trial data, but it must be remembered that these trials can be interpreted in multiple ways depending in part on the biases and experience of the interpreter. This issue has been exemplified by the interpretation of the randomized clinical trials of directional coronary atherectomy (DCA). Interpretation of randomized clinical trials may be difficult. It includes consideration of the design of the trial, the end points used (either single or combined), the power of the study, and the patient population studied. The issue of statistical significance versus clinical significance must also be kept in mind. Recently, equivalence testing has become more sophisticated and more popular. With this design, superiority cannot be proved or assessed; rather, two therapies can be considered equivalent if the difference in outcome falls within predefined boundaries. Usage patterns will then be based on ease of use, patient acceptance, and economic considerations, among others. Recent randomized clinical trials have included DCA, rotational atherectomy, and intracoronary stents.

AB - Changes in practice patterns are the result of multiple factors including physician experience, participation in live demonstration courses, referral biases and expectations, results of single-center studies, multicenter registries, and randomized clinical trials. The relative importance of each of these components varies substantially. The scientific validity is strongest when supported by randomized trial data, but it must be remembered that these trials can be interpreted in multiple ways depending in part on the biases and experience of the interpreter. This issue has been exemplified by the interpretation of the randomized clinical trials of directional coronary atherectomy (DCA). Interpretation of randomized clinical trials may be difficult. It includes consideration of the design of the trial, the end points used (either single or combined), the power of the study, and the patient population studied. The issue of statistical significance versus clinical significance must also be kept in mind. Recently, equivalence testing has become more sophisticated and more popular. With this design, superiority cannot be proved or assessed; rather, two therapies can be considered equivalent if the difference in outcome falls within predefined boundaries. Usage patterns will then be based on ease of use, patient acceptance, and economic considerations, among others. Recent randomized clinical trials have included DCA, rotational atherectomy, and intracoronary stents.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=7844224377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=7844224377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00001573-199809000-00007

DO - 10.1097/00001573-199809000-00007

M3 - Article

C2 - 9823790

AN - SCOPUS:7844224377

VL - 13

SP - 348

EP - 354

JO - Current Opinion in Cardiology

JF - Current Opinion in Cardiology

SN - 0268-4705

IS - 5

ER -