Raymond W Sy1, Paul G Bannon, Matthew S Bayfield, Chris Brown, Leonard Kritharides. 1. Department of Cardiology, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, and the Departments of Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney South Western Area Health Service, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies in infective endocarditis have suggested an association between surgery and reduced mortality. However, these studies did not account for survivor treatment selection bias, which is an underrecognized source of error in observational studies. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the effects of survivor bias on surgical outcomes in infective endocarditis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 223 patients admitted with left-sided infective endocarditis between 1996 and 2006 and compared all-cause mortality between surgically treated and medically treated patients using Cox regression analysis. Propensity scores were used to account for selection bias, and time-dependent analyses were performed to account for survivor bias. Compared with medical patients (n=161), surgical patients (n=62) had lower mortality during a median follow-up of 5.2 years (32% versus 51%; P=0.02) with an unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.88, P=0.01). After adjustment for baseline differences in propensity for surgery and risk of mortality, there remained a significant benefit for surgery (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.88; P=0.02). However, this was diminished after time-dependent analysis (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.40; P=0.39). Conditional Kaplan-Meier analyses confirmed the effect of survivor bias because the apparent benefit of surgery was primarily attributable to excess mortality in the medical group during early hospitalization when surgery was not frequently performed. CONCLUSIONS: Survivor bias significantly affects the evaluation of surgical outcomes in infective endocarditis, and it should be considered in other areas of outcomes research where randomized controlled trials are not feasible. Survivor bias is not corrected by propensity analysis alone but may be reduced by time-dependent survival analysis.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies in infective endocarditis have suggested an association between surgery and reduced mortality. However, these studies did not account for survivor treatment selection bias, which is an underrecognized source of error in observational studies. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the effects of survivor bias on surgical outcomes in infective endocarditis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 223 patients admitted with left-sided infective endocarditis between 1996 and 2006 and compared all-cause mortality between surgically treated and medically treated patients using Cox regression analysis. Propensity scores were used to account for selection bias, and time-dependent analyses were performed to account for survivor bias. Compared with medical patients (n=161), surgical patients (n=62) had lower mortality during a median follow-up of 5.2 years (32% versus 51%; P=0.02) with an unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.88, P=0.01). After adjustment for baseline differences in propensity for surgery and risk of mortality, there remained a significant benefit for surgery (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.88; P=0.02). However, this was diminished after time-dependent analysis (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.40; P=0.39). Conditional Kaplan-Meier analyses confirmed the effect of survivor bias because the apparent benefit of surgery was primarily attributable to excess mortality in the medical group during early hospitalization when surgery was not frequently performed. CONCLUSIONS: Survivor bias significantly affects the evaluation of surgical outcomes in infective endocarditis, and it should be considered in other areas of outcomes research where randomized controlled trials are not feasible. Survivor bias is not corrected by propensity analysis alone but may be reduced by time-dependent survival analysis.
Authors: Tahaniyat Lalani; Christopher H Cabell; Daniel K Benjamin; Ovidiu Lasca; Christoph Naber; Vance G Fowler; G Ralph Corey; Vivian H Chu; Michael Fenely; Orathai Pachirat; Ru-San Tan; Richard Watkin; Adina Ionac; Asuncion Moreno; Carlos A Mestres; José Casabé; Natalia Chipigina; Damon P Eisen; Denis Spelman; Francois Delahaye; Gail Peterson; Lars Olaison; Andrew Wang Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Patricia A Berglund; Catherine Coulouvrat; Timothy Fitzgerald; Goeran Hajak; Thomas Roth; Victoria Shahly; Alicia C Shillington; Judith J Stephenson; James K Walsh Journal: Sleep Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Steven Y C Tong; Joshua S Davis; Emily Eichenberger; Thomas L Holland; Vance G Fowler Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: A Carmona-Bayonas; P Jimenez-Fonseca; A Fernández-Somoano; F Álvarez-Manceñido; E Castañón; A Custodio; F A de la Peña; R M Payo; L P Valiente Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 3.405