Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Unreported exclusion and sampling bias in interpretation of randomized controlled trials in patients with STEMI

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Early diastolic strain rate in relation to long term prognosis following isolated coronary artery bypass grafting

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. The impact of peripheral artery disease on major adverse cardiovascular events following myocardial infarction

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor for all-comers with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Temporal trends and socioeconomic differences in treatment and mortality following a diagnosis of aortic stenosis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  5. Assessment of cardiac arrhythmias using long-term continuous monitoring in patients with pulmonary hypertension

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

AIMS: To assess the impact of sampling bias due to reported as well as unreported exclusion of the target population in a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared clinical characteristics and mortality between participants in the DANAMI-3 trial to contemporary non-participants with STEMI using unselected registries. A total of 179 DANAMI-3 participants (8%) and 617 contemporary non-participants (22%) had died (Log-Rank: P < 0.001) after a median follow-up of 1333 days (range: 1-2021 days). In an unadjusted Cox regression model all groups of non-participants had a higher hazard ratio to predict mortality compared to participants: eligible excluded (n = 144) (hazard ratio: 3.41 (95% CI: (2.69-4.32)), ineligible excluded (n = 472) (hazard ratio: 3.42 (95% CI: (2.44-4.80), eligible non-screened (n = 154) (hazard ratio: 3.37 (95% CI: (2.36-4.82)), ineligible non-screened (n = 154) (hazard ratio: 6.48 (95% CI: (4.77-8.80).

CONCLUSION: Sampling bias had occurred due to both reported and unreported exclusion of eligible patients and the difference in mortality between participants and non-participants could not be explained only by the trial exclusion criteria. Thus, screening logs may not be suited to address the risks of sampling bias.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftInternational Journal of Cardiology
Vol/bind289
Sider (fra-til)1-5
Antal sider5
ISSN0167-5273
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 15 aug. 2019

Bibliografisk note

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

ID: 58230092