Comparison of Clinically Adjudicated Versus Flow-Based Adjudication of Revascularization Events in Randomized Controlled Trials — Rutao Wang (2021) | RDL Network
Comparison of Clinically Adjudicated Versus Flow-Based Adjudication of Revascularization Events in Randomized Controlled Trials
Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 14(11)
Article 2021 English
Authors
RW
Rutao Wang
HK
Hideyuki Kawashima
HH
Hironori Hara
Abstract
1 min read
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.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.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.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.
Sergio Leonardi, Mattia Branca, Anna Franzone, Eugène McFadden, Raffaele Piccolo, Peter Jüni, Pascal Vranckx, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Patrick W. Serruys, Edouard Benit, Christoph Liebetrau, Luc Janssens, Maurizio Ferrario, Aleksander Żurakowski, Roberto Diletti, Marcello Dominici, Kurt Huber, Ton Slagboom, Paweł Buszman, Leonardo Bolognese, Carlo Tumscitz, Krzysztof Bryniarski, Adel Aminian, Mathias Vrolix, Ivo Petrov, Scot Garg, Cristoph Naber, Janusz Prokopczuk, Christian W. Hamm, Dik Heg, Stephan Windecker, Marco Valgimigli
Jonas Hallén, Aldo Maggioni, Esteban López de Sá, Fabio Maria Turazza, Klaus K. Witte, Erland Erdmann, Ulf Dahlström, Georg Ertl, Olav Wendelboe Nielsen, J. López Sendón, Thomas Holbro, Chien‐Wei Chen, Claudio Gimpelewicz, Martín Cowie
Hideyuki Kawashima, Norihiro Kogame, Masafumi Ono, Hironori Hara, Kuniaki Takahashi, Johan H. C. Reiber, Brian Thomsen, Robbert J. de Winter, Kaoru Tanaka, Mark La Meir, Johan De Mey, Ulrich Schneider, Torsten Doenst, Ulf Teichgräber, William Wijns, Saima Mushtaq, Giulio Pompilio, Antonio L. Bartorelli, Daniele Andreini, Patrick W. Serruys,
Lars Søndergaard, Jeffrey J. Popma, Michael J. Reardon, Nicolas M. Van Mieghem, G. Michael Deeb, Susheel Kodali, Isaac George, Mathew Williams, Steven J. Yakubov, A. Pieter Kappetein, Patrick W. Serruys, Eberhard Grube, Molly Schiltgen, Yanping Chang, Thomas Engstrøm, Paul Sorajja, Benjamin Sun, Himanshu Agarwal, Thomas Langdon, Peter den Heijer, Mohamed Bentala, ,
Discussion(0)
No comments yet. Be the first to comment.