Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Comparability of entry characteristics and survival in randomized patients and nonrandomized patients meeting randomization criteria

The Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) includes a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery and medical therapy in the management of patients with mild or moderate stable angina pectoris or free of angina but with a documented history of myocardial infarction. While 780 patients at 11 participating institutions entered the randomized trial, 1,315 patients at the same institutions met randomization criteria but declined participation in the randomized study; they constitute the "randomizable" patients. Half the randomized patients were assigned to surgery and half to the medical group. Of the 1,315 randomizable patients, 43% started with surgical therapy and 57% constitute the medical group. Follow-up periods average 64 months (range 46 to 92). The only entry characteristic in which the randomized and randomizable medical groups differ importantly is the extent of coronary artery disease, which is less extensive in the latter. The two surgical groups also differ in this respect, but with more extensive disease in the randomizable group. At 5 year follow-up, 24% of the medically-assigned randomized patients and 22% of the medically-started randomizable patients have had coronary bypass surgery. Survival in the medically-randomized and randomizable patient groups is similar in the aggregate (both 92% at 5 years) and also in all subgroups based on clinical classification, the number of diseased vessels, the presence of proximal left anterior descending coronary artery disease and ejection fraction. Survival for the surgically-assigned randomized patients and the surgically-started randomizable patients is also similar in the aggregate (95 and 94%, respectively) and in all subgroups. It is concluded that the randomized patients in CASS are not a special or atypical subset of those eligible for randomization. The data from the randomizable patients thus support and extend the inference of the generally very good survival of both the medically- and surgically-assigned patients of the randomized trial.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Y.W. Wong, H. P. Lawrence, and D. T. Wong The effects of prophylactic coronary revascularization or medical management on patient outcomes after noncardiac surgery - a meta-analysis: [Les effets de la revascularisation coronarienne prophylactique ou de la prise en charge medicale sur le devenir des patients apres une chirurgie non-cardiaque : une meta-analyse] Can J Anesth, September 1, 2007; 54(9): 705 - 717. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J West, J Wright, D Tuffnell, D Jankowicz, and R West Do clinical trials improve quality of care? A comparison of clinical processes and outcomes in patients in a clinical trial and similar patients outside a trial where both groups are managed according to a strict protocol Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2005; 14(3): 175 - 178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. E. Vist, K. B. Hagen, P J Devereaux, D. Bryant, D. T. Kristoffersen, and A. D. Oxman Systematic review to determine whether participation in a trial influences outcome BMJ, May 21, 2005; 330(7501): 1175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. King, I. Nazareth, F. Lampe, P. Bower, M. Chandler, M. Morou, B. Sibbald, and R. Lai Impact of Participant and Physician Intervention Preferences on Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review JAMA, March 2, 2005; 293(9): 1089 - 1099. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. D. Halpern Reporting Enrollment in Clinical Trials Ann Intern Med, December 17, 2002; 137(12): 1007 - 1007. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. D Furberg To whom do the research findings apply? Heart, June 1, 2002; 87(6): 570 - 574. [Full Text] [PDF]

				The Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group The COMS Randomized Trial of Iodine 125 Brachytherapy for Choroidal Melanoma, II: Characteristics of Patients Enrolled and Not Enrolled: COMS Report No. 17 Arch Ophthalmol, July 1, 2001; 119(7): 951 - 965. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Benson and A. J. Hartz A Comparison of Observational Studies and Randomized, Controlled Trials N. Engl. J. Med., June 22, 2000; 342(25): 1878 - 1886. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. L. Meinert Beyond CONSORT: Need for Improved Reporting Standards for Clinical Trials JAMA, May 13, 1998; 279(18): 1487 - 1489. [Full Text] [PDF]