Predictors of adverse events among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from a pooled analysis of the COMFORTABLE AMI and EXAMINATION trials

Aims: The aim of this study was to identify predictors of adverse events among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing contemporary primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: Individual data of 2,655 patients from two primary PCI trials (EXAMINATION, N=1,504; COMFORTABLE AMI, N=1,161) with identical endpoint definitions and event adjudication were pooled. Predictors of all-cause death or any reinfarction and definite stent thrombosis (ST) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) outcomes at one year were identified by multivariable Cox regression analysis. Killip class III or IV was the strongest predictor of all-cause death or any reinfarction (OR 5.11, 95% CI: 2.48-10.52), definite ST (OR 7.74, 95% CI: 2.87-20.93), and TLR (OR 2.88, 95% CI: 1.17-7.06). Impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (OR 4.77, 95% CI: 2.10-10.82), final TIMI flow 0-2 (OR 1.93, 95% CI: 1.05-3.54), arterial hypertension (OR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.11-2.59), age (OR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.41-2.01), and peak CK (OR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-1.54) were independent predictors of all-cause death or any reinfarction. Allocation to treatment with DES was an independent predictor of a lower risk of definite ST (OR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.74) and any TLR (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21-0.54). Conclusions: Killip class remains the strongest predictor of all-cause death or any reinfarction among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. DES use independently predicts a lower risk of TLR and definite ST compared with BMS. The COMFORTABLE AMI trial is registered at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00962416. The EXAMINATION trial is registered at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00828087.

The Alexander Technique and musicians: a systematic review of controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders, stress and performance anxiety are common in musicians. Therefore, some use the Alexander Technique (AT), a psycho-physical method that helps to release unnecessary muscle tension and re-educates non-beneficial movement patterns through intentional inhibition of unwanted habitual behaviours. According to a recent review AT sessions may be effective for chronic back pain. This review aimed to evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of AT sessions on musicians' performance, anxiety, respiratory function and posture. METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched up to February 2014 for relevant publications: PUBMED, Google Scholar, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and RILM. The search criteria were "Alexander Technique" AND "music*". References were searched, and experts and societies of AT or musicians' medicine contacted for further publications. RESULTS: 237 citations were assessed. 12 studies were included for further analysis, 5 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 5 controlled but not randomised (CTs), and 2 mixed methods studies. Main outcome measures in RCTs and CTs were music performance, respiratory function, performance anxiety, body use and posture. Music performance was judged by external experts and found to be improved by AT in 1 of 3 RCTs; in 1 RCT comparing neurofeedback (NF) to AT, only NF caused improvements. Respiratory function was investigated in 2 RCTs, but not improved by AT training. Performance anxiety was mostly assessed by questionnaires and decreased by AT in 2 of 2 RCTs and in 2 of 2 CTs. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of outcome measures have been used to investigate the effectiveness of AT sessions in musicians. Evidence from RCTs and CTs suggests that AT sessions may improve performance anxiety in musicians. Effects on music performance, respiratory function and posture yet remain inconclusive. Future trials with well-established study designs are warranted to further and more reliably explore the potential of AT in the interest of musicians.

Robust meta-analytic-predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information.

Historical information is always relevant for clinical trial design. Additionally, if incorporated in the analysis of a new trial, historical data allow to reduce the number of subjects. This decreases costs and trial duration, facilitates recruitment, and may be more ethical. Yet, under prior-data conflict, a too optimistic use of historical data may be inappropriate. We address this challenge by deriving a Bayesian meta-analytic-predictive prior from historical data, which is then combined with the new data. This prospective approach is equivalent to a meta-analytic-combined analysis of historical and new data if parameters are exchangeable across trials. The prospective Bayesian version requires a good approximation of the meta-analytic-predictive prior, which is not available analytically. We propose two- or three-component mixtures of standard priors, which allow for good approximations and, for the one-parameter exponential family, straightforward posterior calculations. Moreover, since one of the mixture components is usually vague, mixture priors will often be heavy-tailed and therefore robust. Further robustness and a more rapid reaction to prior-data conflicts can be achieved by adding an extra weakly-informative mixture component. Use of historical prior information is particularly attractive for adaptive trials, as the randomization ratio can then be changed in case of prior-data conflict. Both frequentist operating characteristics and posterior summaries for various data scenarios show that these designs have desirable properties. We illustrate the methodology for a phase II proof-of-concept trial with historical controls from four studies. Robust meta-analytic-predictive priors alleviate prior-data conflicts ' they should encourage better and more frequent use of historical data in clinical trials.

Factorial designs: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trials.

Factorial designs for clinical trials are often encountered in medical, dental, and orthodontic research. Factorial designs assess two or more interventions simultaneously and the main advantage of this design is its efficiency in terms of sample size as more than one intervention may be assessed on the same participants. However, the factorial design is efficient only under the assumption of no interaction (no effect modification) between the treatments under investigation and, therefore, this should be considered at the design stage. Conversely, the factorial study design may also be used for the purpose of detecting an interaction between two interventions if the study is powered accordingly. However, a factorial design powered to detect an interaction has no advantage in terms of the required sample size compared to a multi-arm parallel trial for assessing more than one intervention. It is the purpose of this article to highlight the methodological issues that should be considered when planning, analysing, and reporting the simplest form of this design, which is the 2 × 2 factorial design. An example from the field of orthodontics using two parameters (bracket type and wire type) on maxillary incisor torque loss will be utilized in order to explain the design requirements, the advantages and disadvantages of this design, and its application in orthodontic research.

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics.

OBJECTIVES Accurate trial reporting facilitates evaluation and better use of study results. The objective of this article is to investigate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in leading orthodontic journals, and to explore potential predictors of improved reporting. METHODS The 50 most recent issues of 4 leading orthodontic journals until November 2013 were electronically searched. Reporting quality assessment was conducted using the modified CONSORT statement checklist. The relationship between potential predictors and the modified CONSORT score was assessed using linear regression modeling. RESULTS 128 RCTs were identified with a mean modified CONSORT score of 68.97% (SD = 11.09). The Journal of Orthodontics (JO) ranked first in terms of completeness of reporting (modified CONSORT score 76.21%, SD = 10.1), followed by American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO) (73.05%, SD = 10.1). Journal of publication (AJODO: β = 10.08, 95% CI: 5.78, 14.38; JO: β = 16.82, 95% CI: 11.70, 21.94; EJO: β = 7.21, 95% CI: 2.69, 11.72 compared to Angle), year of publication (β = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.28, 1.67 for each additional year), region of authorship (Europe: β = 5.19, 95% CI: 1.30, 9.09 compared to Asia/other), statistical significance (significant: β = 3.10, 95% CI: 0.11, 6.10 compared to non-significant) and methodologist involvement (involvement: β = 5.60, 95% CI: 1.66, 9.54 compared to non-involvement) were all significant predictors of improved modified CONSORT scores in the multivariable model. Additionally, median overall Jadad score was 2 (IQR = 2) across journals, with JO (median = 3, IQR = 1) and AJODO (median = 3, IQR = 2) presenting the highest score values. CONCLUSION The reporting quality of RCTs published in leading orthodontic journals is considered suboptimal in various CONSORT areas. This may have a bearing in trial result interpretation and use in clinical decision making and evidence- based orthodontic treatment interventions.

Assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of oral implantology.

AIM Abstracts of randomized clinical trials are extremely important as trial appraisal is often based on the information included here. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of the reporting of RCT abstracts in journals of Oral Implantology. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six leading Implantology journals were screened for RCTs between years 2008 and 2012. A 21-item modified CONSORT for abstracts checklist was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. Descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling were employed for data analysis. RESULTS One hundred and sixty three RCT abstracts were included in this study. The majority of the RCTs were published in the Clinical Oral Implants Research (42.9%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 58.6% (95% CI: 57.6-59.7). The highest score was noted in the European Journal of Oral Implantology (63.8%; 95% CI: 61.8-65.8). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that abstract quality score was related to publication journal and number of research centers involved. Most abstracts adequately reported interventions (89.0%), objectives (77.9%) and conclusions (74.8%) while failed to report randomization procedures, allocation concealment, effect estimate, confidence intervals, and funding. Registration of RCTs was not reported in any of the abstracts. CONCLUSIONS The reporting quality in abstracts of RCTs published in Oral Implantology journals needs to be improved. Editors and authors should be encouraged to endorse the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines in order to achieve optimal quality in abstract reporting.

Sample size in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: are numbers justified?

Sample size calculations are advocated by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study aimed to analyse the reporting of sample size calculations in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals. The performance of sample size calculations was assessed and calculations verified where possible. Related aspects, including number of authors; parallel, split-mouth, or other design; single- or multi-centre study; region of publication; type of data analysis (intention-to-treat or per-protocol basis); and number of participants recruited and lost to follow-up, were considered. Of 139 RCTs identified, complete sample size calculations were reported in 41 studies (29.5 per cent). Parallel designs were typically adopted (n = 113; 81 per cent), with 80 per cent (n = 111) involving two arms and 16 per cent having three arms. Data analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis in a small minority of studies (n = 18; 13 per cent). According to the calculations presented, overall, a median of 46 participants were required to demonstrate sufficient power to highlight meaningful differences (typically at a power of 80 per cent). The median number of participants recruited was 60, with a median of 4 participants being lost to follow-up. Our finding indicates good agreement between projected numbers required and those verified (median discrepancy: 5.3 per cent), although only a minority of trials (29.5 per cent) could be examined. Although sample size calculations are often reported in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals, presentation is suboptimal and in need of significant improvement.

Timing of bacterial carriage sampling in vaccine trials: A modelling study.

BACKGROUND Pathogenic bacteria are often asymptomatically carried in the nasopharynx. Bacterial carriage can be reduced by vaccination and has been used as an alternative endpoint to clinical disease in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Vaccine efficacy (VE) is usually calculated as 1 minus a measure of effect. Estimates of vaccine efficacy from cross-sectional carriage data collected in RCTs are usually based on prevalence odds ratios (PORs) and prevalence ratios (PRs), but it is unclear when these should be measured. METHODS We developed dynamic compartmental transmission models simulating RCTs of a vaccine against a carried pathogen to investigate how VE can best be estimated from cross-sectional carriage data, at which time carriage should optimally be assessed, and to which factors this timing is most sensitive. In the models, vaccine could change carriage acquisition and clearance rates (leaky vaccine); values for these effects were explicitly defined (facq, 1/fdur). POR and PR were calculated from model outputs. Models differed in infection source: other participants or external sources unaffected by the trial. Simulations using multiple vaccine doses were compared to empirical data. RESULTS The combined VE against acquisition and duration calculated using POR (VEˆacq.dur, (1-POR)×100) best estimates the true VE (VEacq.dur, (1-facq×fdur)×100) for leaky vaccines in most scenarios. The mean duration of carriage was the most important factor determining the time until VEˆacq.dur first approximates VEacq.dur: if the mean duration of carriage is 1-1.5 months, up to 4 months are needed; if the mean duration is 2-3 months, up to 8 months are needed. Minor differences were seen between models with different infection sources. In RCTs with shorter intervals between vaccine doses it takes longer after the last dose until VEˆacq.dur approximates VEacq.dur. CONCLUSION The timing of sample collection should be considered when interpreting vaccine efficacy against bacterial carriage measured in RCTs.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for a more transparent and objective appraisal of the evidence. They may decrease the number of false-negative results and prevent delays in the introduction of effective interventions into clinical practice. However, as for any other tool, their misuse can result in severely misleading results. In this article, we discuss the main steps that should be taken when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, namely the preparation of a review protocol, identification of eligible trials, and data extraction, pooling of treatment effects across trials, investigation of potential reasons for differences in treatment effects across trials, and complete reporting of the review methods and findings. We also discuss common pitfalls that should be avoided, including the use of quality assessment tools to derive summary quality scores, pooling of data across trials as if they belonged to a single large trial, and inappropriate uses of meta-regression that could result in misleading estimates of treatment effects because of regression to the mean or the ecological fallacy. If conducted and reported properly, systematic reviews and meta-analyses will increase our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the available evidence, which may eventually facilitate clinical decision making.

IMRT credentialing for prospective trials using institutional virtual phantoms: results of a joint European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer and Radiological Physics Center project.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) credentialing for a EORTC study was performed using an anthropomorphic head phantom from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC; RPC(PH)). Institutions were retrospectively requested to irradiate their institutional phantom (INST(PH)) using the same treatment plan in the framework of a Virtual Phantom Project (VPP) for IMRT credentialing. MATERIALS AND METHODS CT data set of the institutional phantom and measured 2D dose matrices were requested from centers and sent to a dedicated secure EORTC uploader. Data from the RPC(PH) and INST(PH) were thereafter centrally analyzed and inter-compared by the QA team using commercially available software (RIT; ver.5.2; Colorado Springs, USA). RESULTS Eighteen institutions participated to the VPP. The measurements of 6 (33%) institutions could not be analyzed centrally. All other centers passed both the VPP and the RPC ±7%/4 mm credentialing criteria. At the 5%/5 mm gamma criteria (90% of pixels passing), 11(92%) as compared to 12 (100%) centers pass the credentialing process with RPC(PH) and INST(PH) (p = 0.29), respectively. The corresponding pass rate for the 3%/3 mm gamma criteria (90% of pixels passing) was 2 (17%) and 9 (75%; p = 0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS IMRT dosimetry gamma evaluations in a single plane for a H&N prospective trial using the INST(PH) measurements showed agreement at the gamma index criteria of ±5%/5 mm (90% of pixels passing) for a small number of VPP measurements. Using more stringent, criteria, the RPC(PH) and INST(PH) comparison showed disagreement. More data is warranted and urgently required within the framework of prospective studies.

Predicting 3-year mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention: updated logistic clinical SYNTAX score based on patient-level data from 7 contemporary stent trials

OBJECTIVES This study aimed to update the Logistic Clinical SYNTAX score to predict 3-year survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and compare the performance with the SYNTAX score alone. BACKGROUND The SYNTAX score is a well-established angiographic tool to predict long-term outcomes after PCI. The Logistic Clinical SYNTAX score, developed by combining clinical variables with the anatomic SYNTAX score, has been shown to perform better than the SYNTAX score alone in predicting 1-year outcomes after PCI. However, the ability of this score to predict long-term survival is unknown. METHODS Patient-level data (N = 6,304, 399 deaths within 3 years) from 7 contemporary PCI trials were analyzed. We revised the overall risk and the predictor effects in the core model (SYNTAX score, age, creatinine clearance, and left ventricular ejection fraction) using Cox regression analysis to predict mortality at 3 years. We also updated the extended model by combining the core model with additional independent predictors of 3-year mortality (i.e., diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, and body mass index). RESULTS The revised Logistic Clinical SYNTAX models showed better discriminative ability than the anatomic SYNTAX score for the prediction of 3-year mortality after PCI (c-index: SYNTAX score, 0.61; core model, 0.71; and extended model, 0.73 in a cross-validation procedure). The extended model in particular performed better in differentiating low- and intermediate-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS Risk scores combining clinical characteristics with the anatomic SYNTAX score substantially better predict 3-year mortality than the SYNTAX score alone and should be used for long-term risk stratification of patients undergoing PCI.

Prognostic implications of coronary calcification in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease treated by percutaneous coronary intervention: a patient-level pooled analysis of 7 contemporary stent trials

OBJECTIVE To investigate the long-term prognostic implications of coronary calcification in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for obstructive coronary artery disease. METHODS Patient-level data from 6296 patients enrolled in seven clinical drug-eluting stents trials were analysed to identify in angiographic images the presence of severe coronary calcification by an independent academic research organisation (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands). Clinical outcomes at 3-years follow-up including all-cause mortality, death-myocardial infarction (MI), and the composite end-point of all-cause death-MI-any revascularisation were compared between patients with and without severe calcification. RESULTS Severe calcification was detected in 20% of the studied population. Patients with severe lesion calcification were less likely to have undergone complete revascularisation (48% vs 55.6%, p<0.001) and had an increased mortality compared with those without severely calcified arteries (10.8% vs 4.4%, p<0.001). The event rate was also high in patients with severely calcified lesions for the combined end-point death-MI (22.9% vs 10.9%; p<0.001) and death-MI- any revascularisation (31.8% vs 22.4%; p<0.001). On multivariate Cox regression analysis, including the Syntax score, the presence of severe coronary calcification was an independent predictor of poor prognosis (HR: 1.33 95% CI 1.00 to 1.77, p=0.047 for death; 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.49, p=0.031 for death-MI, and 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.39, p=0.042 for death-MI- any revascularisation), but it was not associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS Patients with severely calcified lesions have worse clinical outcomes compared to those without severe coronary calcification. Severe coronary calcification appears as an independent predictor of worse prognosis, and should be considered as a marker of advanced atherosclerosis.

Feasibility platform for stroke studies: an online tool to improve eligibility criteria for clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Eligibility criteria are a key factor for the feasibility and validity of clinical trials. We aimed to develop an online tool to assess the potential effect of inclusion and exclusion criteria on the proportion of patients eligible for an acute stroke trial. METHODS We identified relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria of acute stroke trials. Based on these criteria and using a cohort of 1537 consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke from 3 stroke centers, we developed a web portal feasibility platform for stroke studies (FePASS) to estimate proportions of eligible patients for acute stroke trials. We applied the FePASS resource to calculate the proportion of patients eligible for 4 recent stroke studies. RESULTS Sixty-one eligibility criteria were derived from 30 trials on acute ischemic stroke. FePASS, publicly available at http://fepass.uni-muenster.de, displays the proportion of patients in percent to assess the effect of varying values of relevant eligibility criteria, for example, age, symptom onset time, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and prestroke modified Rankin Scale, on this proportion. The proportion of eligible patients for 4 recent stroke studies ranged from 2.1% to 11.3%. Slight variations of the inclusion criteria could substantially increase the proportion of eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS FePASS is an open access online resource to assess the effect of inclusion and exclusion criteria on the proportion of eligible patients for a stroke trial. FePASS can help to design stroke studies, optimize eligibility criteria, and to estimate the potential recruitment rate.

Aortic valve replacement and concomitant procedures with the Perceval valve: results of European trials.

BACKGROUND The Perceval (Sorin Group, Milan, Italy) is a self-anchoring sutureless aortic valve prosthesis. We report the short- to midterm results of combined aortic valve replacement (AVR) with concomitant procedures in elderly patients undergoing operation as part of 3 consecutive prospective multicenter European studies. METHODS From April 2007 to February 2013, 243 patients (mean age, 79.7 ± 5.1 years; female patients, 61%; median EuroSCORE, 9%) underwent AVR with concomitant procedures. The concomitant procedures were coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (182 cases), septal myectomy (21 cases), CABG + other procedures (18 cases), and 22 other procedures. Primary and secondary end points included implant feasibility and safety (for mortality and morbidity) and efficacy (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class improvement and hemodynamic results) of the prosthesis at the different follow-up periods. Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for survival analysis. RESULTS Mean aortic cross-clamp and extracorporeal circulation (ECC) times were 50.7 ± 22.8 minutes and 78.9 ± 32.3 minutes, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 2.1%. Mean postoperative gradient and effective orifice area were 10.1 ± 4.7 mm Hg and 1.5 ± 0.4 cm(2) and 8.9 ± 5.6 mm Hg and 1.6 ± 0.4 cm(2), respectively, at 1 year. There were early explantations, 4 of which resulted from paravalvular leaks. One additional valve explantation resulted from aortic root bleeding, probably caused by excessively extensive decalcification. In the late period, there was 1 mild paravalvular leak and no intravalvular insufficiency. No migration, dislodgement, or degeneration of the valve occurred during follow-up. Median follow-up was 444 days. CONCLUSIONS These trials confirm the safety and efficacy of the Perceval sutureless aortic valve, especially in elderly patients requiring AVR + concomitant procedures. In this patient group, sutureless valves may be advantageous compared to transcatheter valve implantations as concomitant procedures other than percutaneous coronary artery angioplasty are not always possible in the latter.

Endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke patients: implications and interpretation of IMS III, MR RESCUE, and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials: A report from the Working Group of International Congress of Interventional Neurology

OBJECTIVE The results of Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III, Magnetic Resonance and REcanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy (MR RESCUE), and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials are expected to affect the practice of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke. The purpose of this report is to review the components of the designs and methods of these trials and to describe the influence of those components on the interpretation of trial results. METHODS A critical review of trial design and conduct of IMS III, MR RESCUE, and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION is performed with emphasis on patient selection, shortcomings in procedural aspects, and methodology of data ascertainment and analysis. The influence of each component is estimated based on published literature including multicenter clinical trials reporting on endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction. RESULTS We critically examined the time interval between symptom onset and treatment and rates of angiographic recanalization to differentiate between "endovascular treatment" and "parameter optimized endovascular treatment" as it relates to the IMS III, MR RESCUE, and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials. All the three trials failed to effectively test "parameter optimized endovascular treatment" due to the delay between symptom onset and treatment and less than optimal rates of recanalization. In all the three trials, the magnitude of benefit with endovascular treatment required to reject the null hypothesis was larger than could be expected based on previous studies. The IMS III and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials demonstrated that rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages subsequent to treatment are similar between IV thrombolytics and endovascular treatment in matched acute ischemic stroke patients. The trials also indirectly validated the superiority/equivalence of IV thrombolytics (compared with endovascular treatment) in patients with minor neurological deficits and those without large vessel occlusion on computed tomographic/magnetic resonance angiography. CONCLUSIONS The results do not support a large magnitude benefit of endovascular treatment in subjects randomized in all the three trials. The possibility that benefits of a smaller magnitude exist in certain patient populations cannot be excluded. Large magnitude benefits can be expected with implementation of "parameter optimized endovascular treatment" in patients with ischemic stroke who are candidates for IV thrombolytics.