Suppr超能文献

在TIOSPIR研究中,研究者报告的猝死与裁定的猝死之间存在不一致性。

Discordance in investigator-reported and adjudicated sudden death in TIOSPIR.

作者信息

Wise Robert A, Kowey Peter R, Austen George, Mueller Achim, Metzdorf Norbert, Fowler Andy, McGarvey Lorcan P

机构信息

Dept of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Division of Cardiology, Lankenau Heart Institute and Jefferson Medical College, Wynnewood, PA, USA.

出版信息

ERJ Open Res. 2017 Mar 20;3(1). doi: 10.1183/23120541.00073-2016. eCollection 2017 Jan.

Abstract

Accurate and consistent determination of cause of death is challenging in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. TIOSPIR (N=17 135) compared the safety and efficacy of tiotropium Respimat 5/2.5 µg with HandiHaler 18 µg in COPD patients. All-cause mortality was a primary end-point. A mortality adjudication committee (MAC) assessed all deaths. We aimed to investigate causes of discordance in investigator-reported and MAC-adjudicated causes of death and their impact on results, especially cardiac and sudden death. The MAC provided independent, blinded assessment of investigator-reported deaths (n=1302) and assigned underlying cause of death. Discordance between causes of death was assessed descriptively (shift tables). There was agreement between investigator-reported and MAC-adjudicated deaths in 69.4% of cases at the system organ class level. Differences were mainly observed for cardiac deaths (16.4% investigator, 5.1% MAC) and deaths assigned to general disorders including sudden death (17.4% investigator, 24.6% MAC). Reasons for discrepancies included investigator attribution to the immediate ( myocardial infarction (MI)) over the underlying cause of death ( COPD) and insufficient information for a definitive cause. Cause-specific mortality varies in COPD, depending on the method of assignment. Sudden death, witnessed and unwitnessed, is common in COPD and often attributed to MI without supporting evidence.

摘要

在慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者中,准确且一致地确定死因具有挑战性。TIOSPIR研究(N = 17135)比较了噻托溴铵软雾吸入剂5/2.5μg与都保18μg在COPD患者中的安全性和有效性。全因死亡率是主要终点。一个死亡率判定委员会(MAC)对所有死亡病例进行评估。我们旨在调查研究者报告的死因与MAC判定的死因之间不一致的原因及其对结果的影响,尤其是心脏性死亡和猝死。MAC对研究者报告的死亡病例(n = 1302)进行了独立、盲法评估,并确定了根本死因。通过描述性分析(转换表)评估死因之间的不一致情况。在系统器官分类水平上,69.4%的病例中研究者报告的死因与MAC判定的死因一致。差异主要体现在心脏性死亡(研究者判定为16.4%,MAC判定为5.1%)以及归类于包括猝死在内的一般疾病的死亡(研究者判定为17.4%,MAC判定为24.6%)。差异的原因包括研究者将直接死因(心肌梗死(MI))归因于根本死因(COPD)之上,以及缺乏确定死因的充分信息。在COPD中,特定原因的死亡率因判定方法而异。有目击和无目击的猝死在COPD中很常见,且常常在没有支持证据的情况下归因于MI。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6fa5/5358526/bebf1e48dc88/00073-2016.01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验