Michael O Harhay1,2, Sarah J Ratcliffe3, Dylan S Small2,4, Leah H Suttner1, Michael J Crowther5, Scott D Halpern1,2,6,7. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. 2. Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Division of Biostatistics, Charlottesville, VA. 4. Department of Statistics, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, Centre for Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. 6. Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine. 7. Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In randomized clinical trials among critically ill patients, it is uncertain how choices regarding the measurement and analysis of nonmortal outcomes measured in terms of duration, such as intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), affect studies' conclusions. OBJECTIVES: Assess the definitions and analytic methods used for ICU LOS analyses in published randomized clinical trials. RESEARCH DESIGN: This is a systematic review and statistical simulation study. RESULTS: Among the 80 of 150 trials providing sufficient information regarding the chosen definition of ICU LOS, 3 different start times (ICU admission, trial enrollment/randomization, receipt of intervention) and 2 end times (discharge readiness, actual discharge) were used. In roughly three quarters of these studies, ICU LOS was compared using approaches that did not explicitly account for death, either by ignoring it entirely or stratifying the analyses by survival status. The remaining studies used time-to-event (discharge) models censoring at death or applied a fixed LOS value to patients who died. In statistical simulations, we showed that each analytic approach tested a different question regarding ICU LOS, and that approaches that do not explicitly account for death often produce misleading or ambiguous conclusions when treatments produce small effects on mortality, even if those are not detected as significant in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability in how ICU LOS is measured and analyzed which impairs the ability to compare results across trials and can produce spurious conclusions. Analyses of duration-based outcomes such as LOS should jointly assess the impact of the intervention on mortality to yield correct interpretations.
BACKGROUND: In randomized clinical trials among critically illpatients, it is uncertain how choices regarding the measurement and analysis of nonmortal outcomes measured in terms of duration, such as intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), affect studies' conclusions. OBJECTIVES: Assess the definitions and analytic methods used for ICU LOS analyses in published randomized clinical trials. RESEARCH DESIGN: This is a systematic review and statistical simulation study. RESULTS: Among the 80 of 150 trials providing sufficient information regarding the chosen definition of ICU LOS, 3 different start times (ICU admission, trial enrollment/randomization, receipt of intervention) and 2 end times (discharge readiness, actual discharge) were used. In roughly three quarters of these studies, ICU LOS was compared using approaches that did not explicitly account for death, either by ignoring it entirely or stratifying the analyses by survival status. The remaining studies used time-to-event (discharge) models censoring at death or applied a fixed LOS value to patients who died. In statistical simulations, we showed that each analytic approach tested a different question regarding ICU LOS, and that approaches that do not explicitly account for death often produce misleading or ambiguous conclusions when treatments produce small effects on mortality, even if those are not detected as significant in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability in how ICU LOS is measured and analyzed which impairs the ability to compare results across trials and can produce spurious conclusions. Analyses of duration-based outcomes such as LOS should jointly assess the impact of the intervention on mortality to yield correct interpretations.
Authors: Bradford R Hirsch; Robert M Califf; Steven K Cheng; Asba Tasneem; John Horton; Karen Chiswell; Kevin A Schulman; David M Dilts; Amy P Abernethy Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-06-10 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Elliott E Ridgeon; Paul J Young; Rinaldo Bellomo; Marta Mucchetti; Rosalba Lembo; Giovanni Landoni Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Elizabeth Colantuoni; Victor D Dinglas; E Wesley Ely; Ramona O Hopkins; Dale M Needham Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Arthur Allignol; Martin Schumacher; Christoph Wanner; Christiane Drechsler; Jan Beyersmann Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Elizabeth Colantuoni; Mounica Koneru; Narjes Akhlaghi; Ximin Li; Mohamed D Hashem; Victor D Dinglas; Karin J Neufeld; Michael O Harhay; Dale M Needham Journal: Trials Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Joyce Ji; Jeff Klaus; Jason P Burnham; Andrew Michelson; Colleen A McEvoy; Marin H Kollef; Patrick G Lyons Journal: Chest Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Claire B Rosen; Chris Wirtalla; Luke J Keele; Sanford E Roberts; Elinore J Kaufman; Daniel N Holena; Scott D Halpern; Rachel R Kelz Journal: Med Care Date: 2022-05-30 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: George L Anesi; Vincent X Liu; Marzana Chowdhury; Dylan S Small; Wei Wang; M Kit Delgado; Brian Bayes; Erich Dress; Gabriel J Escobar; Scott D Halpern Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 30.528
Authors: Michael O Harhay; Jonathan D Casey; Marina Clement; Sean P Collins; Étienne Gayat; Michelle Ng Gong; Samir Jaber; Pierre-François Laterre; John C Marshall; Michael A Matthay; Rhonda E Monroe; Todd W Rice; Eileen Rubin; Wesley H Self; Alexandre Mebazaa Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Brennan C Kahan; Tim P Morris; Ian R White; Conor D Tweed; Suzie Cro; Darren Dahly; Tra My Pham; Hanif Esmail; Abdel Babiker; James R Carpenter Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Rameela Raman; Wencong Chen; Michael O Harhay; Jennifer L Thompson; E Wesley Ely; Pratik P Pandharipande; Mayur B Patel Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Michael O Harhay; Alessandro Gasparini; Allan J Walkey; Gary E Weissman; Michael J Crowther; Sarah J Ratcliffe; James A Russell Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2020-04-29
Authors: Catherine L Auriemma; Michael O Harhay; Kimberley J Haines; Frances K Barg; Scott D Halpern; Sarah M Lyon Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 2.228