Article

The problem with composite end points in cardiovascular studies: the story of major adverse cardiac events and percutaneous coronary intervention.

College of Nursing, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33612, USA.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Impact Factor: 15.34). 03/2008; 51(7):701-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.10.034
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Our purpose was to evaluate the heterogeneity and validity of composite end points, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in particular, in cardiology research.
The term MACE is a commonly used end point for cardiovascular research. By definition, MACE is a composite of clinical events and usually includes end points reflecting safety and effectiveness. There is no standard definition for MACE, as individual outcomes used to make this composite end point vary by study. This inconsistency calls into question whether use of MACE in cardiology research is of value.
We conducted a 2-phase literature review on the use of MACE as a composite end point: 1) studies that have compared use of bare-metal versus drug-eluting stents; and 2) studies published in the Journal in calendar year 2006. We subsequently tested 3 different definitions of MACE during 1-year of follow-up among 6,922 patients in the DEScover registry who received at least 1 drug-eluting stent.
The review identified substantial heterogeneity in the study-specific individual outcomes used to define MACE. Markedly different results were observed for selected patient subsets of acute myocardial infarction (MI) (vs. no MI) and multilesion stenting (vs. single-lesion stenting) according to the various definitions of MACE.
Varying definitions of composite end points, such as MACE, can lead to substantially different results and conclusions. Therefore, the term MACE, in particular, should not be used, and when composite study end points are desired, researchers should focus separately on safety and effectiveness outcomes, and construct separate composite end points to match these different clinical goals.

2 Followers
 · 
74 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medicare conducted a payment demonstration to evaluate the effectiveness of two intensive lifestyle modification programs in patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease: the Dr. Dean Ornish Program for Reversing Heart Disease (Ornish) and Cardiac Wellness Program of the Benson-Henry Mind Body Institute. This report describes the changes in cardiac risk factors achieved by each program during the active intervention year and subsequent year of follow-up. The demonstration enrolled 580 participants who had had an acute myocardial infarction, had undergone coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention within 12 months, or had documented stable angina pectoris. Of these, 98% completed the intense 3-month intervention, 71% the 12-month intervention, and 56% an additional follow-up year. Most cardiac risk factors improved significantly during the intense intervention period in both programs. Favorable changes in cardiac risk factors and functional cardiac capacity were maintained or improved further at 12 and 24 months in participants with active follow-up. Multivariable regressions found that risk-factor improvements were positively associated with abnormal baseline values, Ornish program participation for body mass index and systolic blood pressure, and with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Expressed levels of motivation to lose weight and maintain weight loss were significant independent predictors of sustained weight loss (p = 0.006). Both lifestyle modification programs achieved well-sustained reductions in cardiac risk factors.
    PLoS ONE 12/2014; 9(12):e114772. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114772 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background-Many clinical trials use composite end points to reduce sample size, but the relative importance of each individual end point within the composite may differ between patients and researchers. Methods and Results-We asked 785 cardiovascular patients and 164 clinical trial authors to assign 25 "spending weights" across 5 common adverse events comprising composite end points in cardiovascular trials: death, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for angina. We then calculated end point ratios for each participant's ratings of each nonfatal end point relative to death. Whereas patients assigned an average weight of 5 to death, equal or greater weight was assigned to myocardial infarction (mean ratio, 1.12) and stroke (ratio, 1.08). In contrast, clinical trialists were much more concerned about death (average weight, 8) than myocardial infarction (ratio, 0.63) or stroke (ratio, 0.53). Both patients and trialists considered revascularization (ratio, 0.48 and 0.20, respectively) and hospitalization (ratio, 0.28 and 0.13, respectively) as substantially less severe than death. Differences between patient and trialist end point weights persisted after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Conclusions-Patients and clinical trialists did not weigh individual components of a composite end point equally. Whereas trialists are most concerned about avoiding death, patients place equal or greater importance on reducing myocardial infarction or stroke. Both groups considered revascularization and hospitalization as substantially less severe. These findings suggest that equal weights in a composite clinical end point do not accurately reflect the preferences of either patients or trialists.
    Circulation 09/2014; 130(15). DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006588 · 14.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the bare-metal stent era, routine follow-up coronary angiography (RFU CAG) was used to ensure stent patency. With the advent of drug-eluting stents (DESs) with better safety and efficacy profiles, RFU CAG has been performed less often. There are few data on the clinical impact of RFU CAG after second- or third-generation DES implantation in clinically stable patients with coronary artery disease; the aim of this study was to examine this issue. We analyzed clinical outcomes retrospectively of 259 patients who were event-free at 12-month after stent implantation and did not undergo RFU CAG (clinical follow-up group) and 364 patients who were event-free prior to RFU CAG (angiographic follow-up group). Baseline characteristics were compared between the groups. The Kaplan-Meier estimated total survival and major adverse cardiac event (MACE)-free survival did not differ between the groups (p = 0.100 and p = 0.461, respectively). The cumulative MACE rate was also not different between the groups (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 2.02). In the angiographic follow-up group, 8.8% revascularization was seen at RFU CAG. RFU CAG did not affect long-term clinical outcome after second- or third-generation DES implantation in clinically stable patients.
    The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine 01/2015; 30(1):49-55. DOI:10.3904/kjim.2015.30.1.49

Preview

Download
4 Downloads
Available from