Suppr超能文献

心肌再生随机临床试验中符合条件并已入组与符合条件但未入组的慢性缺血性心力衰竭患者

Eligible-and-enrolled vs. eligible-but-not-enrolled patients with chronic ischaemic heart failure in randomized clinical trials of myocardial regeneration.

作者信息

Czyż Łukasz, Chmiel Jakub, Drabik Leszek, Mazurek Adam, Kwiecień Ewa, Sikorska Martyna, Skubera Maciej, Zasada Wojciech, Podolec Piotr, Musiałek Piotr

机构信息

Department of Cardiac and Vascular Diseases, Jagiellonian University, John Paul II Hospital, Krakow, Poland.

KCRI, Krakow, Poland.

出版信息

Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2022 Dec;18(4):407-415. doi: 10.5114/aic.2022.121133. Epub 2022 Nov 19.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trial applicability to routine clinical practice is a fundamental consideration. Little is known about factors that determine enrolment (vs. non-enrolment) in chronic ischaemic heart failure (CIHF) interventional randomized controlled trials (iRCT).

AIM

To compare clinical characteristics and medical therapy in eligible-and-enrolled (E-E) vs. eligible-but-not-enrolled (E-NE) patients in CIHF myocardial regeneration iRCTs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Clinical characteristics and medical treatment were compared for E-E and E-NE in 4 periods (32 months): P1 (iRCT#1 recruitment), P2 (between iRCT#1 and iRCT#2), P3 (iRCT#2 recruitment), P4 (post iRCT#2). iRCT#1 and iRCT#2 shared inclusion/exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Evaluation involved 5,436 hospitalized patients (P1-P4; CIHF-526). 283 were iRCT eligible (53.8%). The eligibility rate was similar throughout P1-P4 (43.1-58.5%, = 0.08). Eligible patient characteristics and pharmacotherapy did not differ in recruitment vs. non-recruitment periods. Principal reasons for ineligibility were recent/planned cardiac intervention outside iRCT (22.8%), age above threshold (14.6%) and coexisting disease as the exclusion criterion (12.2%). Primary reasons for eligible patient non-enrolment ( = 89) were other trial participation (52.8%) and no consent (28.1%). E-E patients did not differ from E-NE in characteristics including CIHF medical management and clinical stage; the exception was more severe left ventricular impairment in E-E (LVEF 31.2 vs. 33.9%, = 0.039; end-diastolic volume 197.8 vs. 160.4 ml, < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

CIHF medical management was similar in E-E and E-NE. Ineligibility resulted mainly from recent/planned intervention outside iRCT and age > 80 years. LV impairment was more severe in E-E patients, consistent with higher-risk patient enrolment in CIHF-iRCTs. This contrasts with typical lower-risk patient enrolment in other cardiovascular RCT types and populations.

摘要

引言

临床试验在常规临床实践中的适用性是一个基本考量因素。关于决定慢性缺血性心力衰竭(CIHF)介入性随机对照试验(iRCT)入选(与未入选)的因素,我们了解甚少。

目的

比较CIHF心肌再生iRCT中符合入选标准且入选(E-E)与符合入选标准但未入选(E-NE)患者的临床特征和药物治疗情况。

材料与方法

在4个阶段(32个月)比较E-E和E-NE患者的临床特征和药物治疗情况:P1(iRCT#1招募阶段)、P2(iRCT#1与iRCT#2之间)、P3(iRCT#2招募阶段)、P4(iRCT#2之后)。iRCT#1和iRCT#2共享纳入/排除标准。

结果

评估涉及5436例住院患者(P1 - P4;CIHF患者526例)。283例符合iRCT入选标准(53.8%)。P1 - P4期间入选率相似(43.1 - 58.5%,P = 0.08)。入选与未入选期间,符合入选标准患者的特征和药物治疗无差异。不符合入选标准的主要原因是近期/计划在iRCT之外进行心脏干预(22.8%)、年龄高于阈值(14.6%)以及并存疾病作为排除标准(12.2%)。符合入选标准患者未入选(n = 89)的主要原因是参与了其他试验(52.8%)和未获得同意(28.1%)。E-E患者与E-NE患者在包括CIHF药物管理和临床分期等特征方面无差异;唯一例外是E-E患者左心室损害更严重(左心室射血分数31.2%对33.9%,P = 0.039;舒张末期容积197.8ml对160.4ml,P < 0.0001)。

结论

E-E和E-NE患者的CIHF药物管理相似。不符合入选标准主要是由于近期/计划在iRCT之外进行干预以及年龄>80岁。E-E患者的左心室损害更严重,这与CIHF - iRCT中纳入高风险患者一致。这与其他心血管RCT类型和人群中典型的低风险患者入选情况形成对比。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7fd8/10031667/09ea4d6563af/PWKI-18-48159-g001.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