Comparison of Clinically Adjudicated Versus Flow-Based Adjudication of Revascularization Events in Randomized Controlled Trials

Author:

Wang Rutao123ORCID,Kawashima Hideyuki24,Hara Hironori24,Gao Chao123,Ono Masafumi24ORCID,Takahashi Kuniaki4,Tu Shengxian5ORCID,Soliman Osama2ORCID,Garg Scot6,van Geuns Robert Jan3,Tao Ling1,Wijns William27,Onuma Yoshinobu2,Serruys Patrick W.28ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Cardiology, Xijing hospital, Xi’an, China (R.W., C.G., L.T.).

2. Department of Cardiology, National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG), Ireland (R.W., H.K., H.H., C.G., M.O., O.S., W.W., Y.O., P.W.S.).

3. Department of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.W., C.G., R.J.v.G.).

4. Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Universities Medical Centers, Location Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands (H.K., H.H., M.O., K.T.).

5. Biomedical Instrument Institute, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China (S.T.).

6. East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Blackburn, Lancashire, United Kingdom (S.G.).

7. The Lambe Institute for Translational Medicine, The Smart Sensors Laboratory and Curam, National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG), Ireland (W.W.).

8. NHLI, Imperial College London, United Kingdom (P.W.S.).

Abstract

Background: In clinical trials, the optimal method of adjudicating revascularization events as clinically or nonclinically indicated (CI) is to use an independent Clinical Events Committee (CEC). However, the Academic Research Consortium-2 currently recommends using physiological assessment. The level of agreement between these methods of adjudication remains unknown. Methods: Data for all CEC adjudicated revascularization events among the 3457 patients followed-up for 2-years in the TALENT trial, and 3-years in the DESSOLVE III, PIONEER, and SYNTAX II trial were collected and readjudicated according to a quantitative flow ratio (QFR) analysis of the revascularized vessels, by an independent core lab blinded to the results of the conventional CEC adjudication. The κ statistic was used to assess the level of agreement between the 2 methods. Results: In total, 351 CEC-adjudicated repeat revascularization events occurred, with retrospective QFR analysis successfully performed in 212 (60.4%). According to QFR analysis, 104 events (QFR ≤0.80) were adjudicated as CI revascularizations and 108 (QFR >0.80) were not. The agreement between CEC and QFR based adjudication was just fair (κ=0.335). Between the 2 methods of adjudication, there was a disagreement of 26.4% and 7.1% in CI and non-CI revascularization, respectively. Overall, the concordance and discordance rates were 66.5% and 33.5%, respectively. Conclusions: In this event-level analysis, QFR based adjudication had a relatively low agreement with CEC adjudication with respect to whether revascularization events were CI or not. CEC adjudication appears to overestimate CI revascularization as compared with QFR adjudication. Direct comparison between these 2 strategies in terms of revascularization adjudication is warranted in future trials. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: TALENT trial: NCT02870140, DESSOLVE III trial: NCT02385279, SYNTAX II: NCT02015832, and PIONEER trial: NCT02236975.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3