JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 1998; 31:265-272
© 1998 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Omoigui, N.
Right arrow Articles by Topol, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Omoigui, N.
Right arrow Articles by Topol, E.

Influence of a randomized clinical trial on practice by participating investigators: lessons from the Coronary Angioplasty Versus Excisional Atherectomy Trial (CAVEAT). CAVEAT I and II Investigators

NA Omoigui, MJ Silver, LA Rybicki, M Rosenthal, LG Berdan, K Pieper, SV King, RM Califf, and EJ Topol

Department of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Columbia 29203, USA. nowa@richmed.medpark.sc.edu

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether the results of the first Coronary Angioplasty Versus Excisional Atherectomy Trial (CAVEAT-I) influenced subsequent practice patterns among the investigators. BACKGROUND: CAVEAT-I demonstrated that directional coronary atherectomy (DCA) resulted in higher rates of early complications at a higher cost and with no clinical benefit. We sought to determine whether these results influenced subsequent use of procedures among CAVEAT-I investigators. METHODS: We compared the results of a week-long registry of all coronary interventions performed at 35 CAVEAT-I sites in 1994 with those of a similar registry obtained in 1992 before the trial, the results of which were published in 1993. For control purposes, the use of procedures was studied at 24 additional sites to provide insight into practice at hospitals not participating in the trial. A total of 1,465 interventions were analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety-four percent of CAVEAT-I sites responded. Utilization rates differed between CAVEAT-I and CAVEAT-I follow-up (p < 0.001). Balloon angioplasty decreased from 83.8% to 68.5%, DCA increased slightly from 10.7% to 14.1%, and the use of other devices increased from 5.4% to 17.5%. Stand-alone balloon use was more prevalent at nonparticipating control sites than at sites that took part in CAVEAT-I (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Paradoxically, despite the negative findings of CAVEAT-I, there was a noteworthy trend toward an increase in the use of DCA and other devices at CAVEAT-I sites. Our findings suggest that among investigators in the trial, there may have been a lack of influence of trial data on clinical practice patterns 1 year after publication of the results. Ethics of protocol: Both CAVEAT I and II were approved by the Institutional Review Board at each study site.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CirculationHome page
F. A. McAlister
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy for Heart Failure: A Hammer in Search of Nails
Circulation, August 26, 2008; 118(9): 901 - 903.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Intern MedHome page
S. M. Singh, P. C. Austin, A. Chong, and D. A. Alter
Coronary Angiography Following Acute Myocardial Infarction in Ontario, Canada
Arch Intern Med, April 23, 2007; 167(8): 808 - 813.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
SEMIN CARDIOTHORAC VASC ANESTHHome page
C. E. Chambers, S. T Riebel, and M. Kozak
Interventional Cardiology: Advances in Percutaneous Techniques for the Treatment of Cardiac Disease
Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, July 1, 1999; 3(2): 109 - 125.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
S. N. Goodman
Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics. 2: The Bayes Factor
Ann Intern Med, June 15, 1999; 130(12): 1005 - 1013.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 1998 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.