Franzone Anna, Heg Dik, Räber Lorenz, Valgimigli Marco, Piccolo Raffaele, Zanchin Thomas, Yamaji Kyohei, Stortecky Stefan, Blöchlinger Stefan, Hunziker Lukas, Praz Fabien, Jüni Peter, Windecker Stephan, Pilgrim Thomas
Department of Cardiology, Swiss Cardiovascular Center, Bern University Hospital, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Clin Res Cardiol. 2016 Sep;105(9):744-54. doi: 10.1007/s00392-016-0983-z. Epub 2016 Apr 1.
We sought to systematically evaluate the external validity of a contemporary randomized controlled stent trial (BIOSCIENCE).
Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients enrolled into the BIOSCIENCE trial at Bern University Hospital (n = 1216) were compared to those of patients included in the CARDIOBASE Bern PCI Registry at the same institution (n = 1045). The primary study endpoint was the rate of target lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-myocardial infarction (MI) or target lesion revascularization (TLR), at 1 year.
Women were underrepresented in the RCT compared to the registry (25 vs. 29.4 %, p = 0.020). Non-participants were older compared to study participants (69.2 ± 12.4 vs. 67.0 ± 11.6, p < 0.001), and had a higher prevalence of previous cerebrovascular events (10.8 vs. 5.2 %, p < 0.001), and chronic renal failure (35.5 vs. 15.6 %, p < 0.001). ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and Killip class IV at presentation were more common among non-participants than participants (30.7 vs. 21.1 %, p < 0.001 and 7.8 vs. 0.4 %, p < 0.001, respectively). At 1 year, non-participants experienced a significantly higher rate of TLF, (15.0 vs. 6.5 %, p < 0.001), and patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), including death, MI or any repeat revascularization (21.6 vs. 11.2 %, p < 0.001). There was a significant interaction between POCE and presence or absence of an acute coronary syndrome in participants versus non-participants, respectively (p = 0.009).
Non-participants of this all-comers trial had a higher risk profile and adverse prognosis compared to study participants. Further efforts are needed to improve the external validity of contemporary RCTs.
我们试图系统评估一项当代随机对照支架试验(BIOSCIENCE)的外部有效性。
将伯尔尼大学医院纳入BIOSCIENCE试验的患者(n = 1216)的基线特征和临床结局,与同一机构纳入CARDIOBASE伯尔尼PCI注册研究的患者(n = 1045)进行比较。主要研究终点为1年时的靶病变失败(TLF)率,定义为心源性死亡、靶血管心肌梗死(MI)或靶病变血运重建(TLR)的复合终点。
与注册研究相比,随机对照试验中的女性比例较低(25%对29.4%,p = 0.020)。未参与者比参与者年龄更大(69.2±12.4对67.0±11.6,p < 0.001),既往脑血管事件患病率更高(10.8%对5.2%,p < 0.001),慢性肾衰竭患病率更高(35.5%对15.6%,p < 0.001)。未参与者中,ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)和就诊时Killip分级IV级比参与者更常见(分别为30.7%对21.1%,p < 0.001和7.8%对0.4%,p < 0.001)。1年时,未参与者的TLF率显著更高(15.0%对6.5%,p < 0.001),以及以患者为导向的复合终点(POCE),包括死亡、MI或任何再次血运重建(21.6%对11.2%,p < 0.001)。参与者与未参与者的POCE与是否存在急性冠状动脉综合征之间存在显著交互作用(p = 0.009)。
与研究参与者相比,这项纳入所有患者的试验中的未参与者具有更高的风险特征和不良预后。需要进一步努力提高当代随机对照试验的外部有效性。