UNASSIGNED: We conducted two anonymous online surveys: 1) a clinical case scenario-based survey to assess willingness to offer clinical trial enrollment for a patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy (overall response rate to email invitation 0.45 %), and 2) a Delphi consensus-building survey to identify specific areas of clinical equipoise (overall response rate to email invitation 37 %).
UNASSIGNED: Among 304 physicians responding to the clinical case scenario-based survey, the majority were willing to offer the opportunity for clinical trial enrollment to a prototypical patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy (92 %), and felt that a finding of non-inferiority for PCI vs. CABG would influence their clinical practice (78 %). Among 53 physicians responding to the Delphi consensus-building survey, the median appropriateness rating for CABG was significantly higher than that of PCI (p < 0.0001). In 17 scenarios (11.8 %), there was no difference in CABG or PCI appropriateness ratings, suggesting clinical equipoise in these settings.
UNASSIGNED: Our findings demonstrate willingness to consider offering enrollment in a randomized clinical trial and areas of clinical equipoise, two factors that support the feasibility of a randomized trial to compare clinical outcomes after revascularization with CABG vs. PCI in selected patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, suitable coronary anatomy and co-morbidity profile.
UNASSIGNED:我们进行了两项匿名在线调查:1)一项基于临床病例情景的调查,以评估为缺血性心肌病患者提供临床试验注册的意愿(对电子邮件邀请的总体反应率为0.45%),
未经评估:在对基于临床病例情景的调查做出回应的304名医生中,
UNASSIGNED:我们的研究结果表明,我们愿意考虑在随机临床试验和临床平衡领域提供注册,