增加患者视角:心脏手术临床试验中患者报告结果的必要性

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Current Opinion in Cardiology Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-23 DOI:10.1097/HCO.0000000000001239
Alexander C Gregg, Ruth Masterson Creber, John A Spertus, Gregg W Stone, Mario F Gaudino
{"title":"增加患者视角:心脏手术临床试验中患者报告结果的必要性","authors":"Alexander C Gregg, Ruth Masterson Creber, John A Spertus, Gregg W Stone, Mario F Gaudino","doi":"10.1097/HCO.0000000000001239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This review highlights the growing importance of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in cardiac surgery trials. Cardiac surgery trials have traditionally focused on cardiovascular events such as survival, stroke or myocardial infarction. However, as surgical outcomes have continued to improve, incorporating the patient's perspective through PROs has become increasingly critical. Incorporating PROs as key study outcomes provides essential patient data, while also overcoming the methodological limitations of classic composite endpoints.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Continued advancements in cardiac surgery have significantly reduced classic endpoint differentials, making it challenging to evaluate interventions with their use alone. PROs offer more granular details on the effects of surgical interventions compared to classic clinical events and are widely used in other medical fields. More recently, cardiac surgery trials have begun successfully implementing PROs, though there is need for greater utilization across the discipline.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The integration of PROs into cardiac surgery trials allows for better understanding of the impact of surgical interventions on patients' daily lives. While barriers exist, efforts to develop and standardize PRO measures promise to enhance the relevance of cardiac surgery clinical trials and ultimately improve patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":55197,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":"350-356"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12221202/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adding the patient perspective: the necessity of patient reported outcomes in cardiac surgery clinical trials.\",\"authors\":\"Alexander C Gregg, Ruth Masterson Creber, John A Spertus, Gregg W Stone, Mario F Gaudino\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HCO.0000000000001239\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This review highlights the growing importance of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in cardiac surgery trials. Cardiac surgery trials have traditionally focused on cardiovascular events such as survival, stroke or myocardial infarction. However, as surgical outcomes have continued to improve, incorporating the patient's perspective through PROs has become increasingly critical. Incorporating PROs as key study outcomes provides essential patient data, while also overcoming the methodological limitations of classic composite endpoints.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Continued advancements in cardiac surgery have significantly reduced classic endpoint differentials, making it challenging to evaluate interventions with their use alone. PROs offer more granular details on the effects of surgical interventions compared to classic clinical events and are widely used in other medical fields. More recently, cardiac surgery trials have begun successfully implementing PROs, though there is need for greater utilization across the discipline.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The integration of PROs into cardiac surgery trials allows for better understanding of the impact of surgical interventions on patients' daily lives. While barriers exist, efforts to develop and standardize PRO measures promise to enhance the relevance of cardiac surgery clinical trials and ultimately improve patient care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Cardiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"350-356\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12221202/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000001239\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000001239","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

综述目的:本综述强调了心脏外科试验中患者报告结果(pro)日益重要。心脏手术试验传统上关注心血管事件,如生存、中风或心肌梗死。然而,随着手术结果的不断改善,通过pro纳入患者的观点变得越来越重要。将PROs作为关键研究结果提供了必要的患者数据,同时也克服了经典复合终点的方法学局限性。最近的研究发现:心脏外科手术的持续进步显著降低了经典的终点差异,这使得单独评估干预措施具有挑战性。与经典临床事件相比,pro提供了更多关于手术干预效果的细节,并广泛应用于其他医学领域。最近,心脏外科试验已经开始成功地实施PROs,尽管需要在整个学科中更多地利用它。总结:将PROs纳入心脏外科试验可以更好地了解手术干预对患者日常生活的影响。尽管存在障碍,但开发和标准化PRO措施的努力有望提高心脏手术临床试验的相关性,并最终改善患者护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Adding the patient perspective: the necessity of patient reported outcomes in cardiac surgery clinical trials.

Purpose of review: This review highlights the growing importance of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in cardiac surgery trials. Cardiac surgery trials have traditionally focused on cardiovascular events such as survival, stroke or myocardial infarction. However, as surgical outcomes have continued to improve, incorporating the patient's perspective through PROs has become increasingly critical. Incorporating PROs as key study outcomes provides essential patient data, while also overcoming the methodological limitations of classic composite endpoints.

Recent findings: Continued advancements in cardiac surgery have significantly reduced classic endpoint differentials, making it challenging to evaluate interventions with their use alone. PROs offer more granular details on the effects of surgical interventions compared to classic clinical events and are widely used in other medical fields. More recently, cardiac surgery trials have begun successfully implementing PROs, though there is need for greater utilization across the discipline.

Summary: The integration of PROs into cardiac surgery trials allows for better understanding of the impact of surgical interventions on patients' daily lives. While barriers exist, efforts to develop and standardize PRO measures promise to enhance the relevance of cardiac surgery clinical trials and ultimately improve patient care.

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
Current Opinion in Cardiology
Current Opinion in Cardiology 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
78
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​​Current Opinion in Cardiology is a bimonthly publication offering a unique and wide ranging perspective on the key developments in the field. Each issue features hand-picked review articles from our team of expert editors. With fourteen disciplines published across the year – including arrhythmias, molecular genetics, HDL cholesterol and clinical trials – every issue also contains annotated reference detailing the merits of the most important papers.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信