Lucas Lauder1, Bruno R da Costa2,3, Sebastian Ewen1, Sean S Scholz1, William Wijns4, Thomas F Lüscher5,6, Patrick W Serruys7, Elazer R Edelman8,9, Davide Capodanno10, Michael Böhm1, Peter Jüni2,11, Felix Mahfoud1,9. 1. Klinik für Innere Medizin III, Kardiologie, Angiologie und Internistische Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Saarland University, Kirrberger Str., Gebäude 41.1, 66421 Homburg/Saar, Germany. 2. Applied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada. 3. Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Mittelstraße 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. 4. The Lambe Institute for Translational Medicine and CURAM, National University of Ireland, University Road, Galway H91 TK33, Ireland. 5. Center for Molecular Cardiology, Schlieren Campus, University of Zürich, Wagistrasse 12, 8952 Schlieren, Switzerland. 6. Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospital Trust, Imperial College London, Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP, UK. 7. The National Lung and Heart Institute, Imperial College London, Dovehouse St, Chelsea, London SW3 6LY, UK. 8. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 9. Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, MIT, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. 10. Division of Cardiology, C.A.S.T., P.O. "G. Rodolico", Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria "Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele", University of Catania, Via S. Citelli, 31 Catania, Italy. 11. Department of Medicine, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada.
Abstract
AIMS: The difference in the benefit of invasive cardiovascular interventions compared with placebo controls has not been analysed systematically. METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched through 29 March 2020. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions (including catheter-based interventions and pacemaker-like devices) investigating predefined primary outcomes were included. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and odds ratios were calculated for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Meta-regression analyses were performed to assess whether estimates of treatment effects were associated with methodological characteristics of trials. Thirty trials, including 4102 patients, were analysed. The overall risk of bias was judged to be low in only 43% of the trials. Ten trials (33%) demonstrated statistically significant superiority of invasive interventions over placebo controls for the respective predefined primary outcomes. In almost half of the 16 trials investigating continuous predefined primary outcomes, the SMD between the active and placebo procedure indicated a small (n = 4) to moderate (n = 3) treatment effect of active treatment over placebo. In contrast, one trial indicated a small treatment effect in favour of the placebo procedure. In the remaining trials, there was no relevant treatment effect of active treatment over placebo. In trials with a protocol-mandated stable and symmetrical use of co-interventions, the superiority of active procedures vs. invasive placebo procedures was significantly larger as compared with trials with frequent or unbalanced changes in co-interventions (P for interaction 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: The additional treatment effect of invasive cardiovascular interventions compared with placebo controls was small in most trials. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: The difference in the benefit of invasive cardiovascular interventions compared with placebo controls has not been analysed systematically. METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched through 29 March 2020. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions (including catheter-based interventions and pacemaker-like devices) investigating predefined primary outcomes were included. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and odds ratios were calculated for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Meta-regression analyses were performed to assess whether estimates of treatment effects were associated with methodological characteristics of trials. Thirty trials, including 4102 patients, were analysed. The overall risk of bias was judged to be low in only 43% of the trials. Ten trials (33%) demonstrated statistically significant superiority of invasive interventions over placebo controls for the respective predefined primary outcomes. In almost half of the 16 trials investigating continuous predefined primary outcomes, the SMD between the active and placebo procedure indicated a small (n = 4) to moderate (n = 3) treatment effect of active treatment over placebo. In contrast, one trial indicated a small treatment effect in favour of the placebo procedure. In the remaining trials, there was no relevant treatment effect of active treatment over placebo. In trials with a protocol-mandated stable and symmetrical use of co-interventions, the superiority of active procedures vs. invasive placebo procedures was significantly larger as compared with trials with frequent or unbalanced changes in co-interventions (P for interaction 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: The additional treatment effect of invasive cardiovascular interventions compared with placebo controls was small in most trials. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: John D Bisognano; George Bakris; Mitra K Nadim; Luis Sanchez; Abraham A Kroon; Jill Schafer; Peter W de Leeuw; Domenic A Sica Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-08-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michel Azizi; Roland E Schmieder; Felix Mahfoud; Michael A Weber; Joost Daemen; Justin Davies; Jan Basile; Ajay J Kirtane; Yale Wang; Melvin D Lobo; Manish Saxena; Lida Feyz; Florian Rader; Philipp Lurz; Jeremy Sayer; Marc Sapoval; Terry Levy; Kintur Sanghvi; Josephine Abraham; Andrew S P Sharp; Naomi D L Fisher; Michael J Bloch; Helen Reeve-Stoffer; Leslie Coleman; Christopher Mullin; Laura Mauri Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bruno R da Costa; Anne W S Rutjes; Bradley C Johnston; Stephan Reichenbach; Eveline Nüesch; Thomy Tonia; Armin Gemperli; Gordon H Guyatt; Peter Jüni Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Andrew Dowson; Michael J Mullen; Richard Peatfield; Keith Muir; Arif Anis Khan; Christopher Wells; Susan L Lipscombe; Trevor Rees; Joseph V De Giovanni; W Lindsay Morrison; David Hildick-Smith; Giles Elrington; W Stewart Hillis; Iqbal S Malik; Anthony Rickards Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-03-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rasha Al-Lamee; David Thompson; Hakim-Moulay Dehbi; Sayan Sen; Kare Tang; John Davies; Thomas Keeble; Michael Mielewczik; Raffi Kaprielian; Iqbal S Malik; Sukhjinder S Nijjer; Ricardo Petraco; Christopher Cook; Yousif Ahmad; James Howard; Christopher Baker; Andrew Sharp; Robert Gerber; Suneel Talwar; Ravi Assomull; Jamil Mayet; Roland Wensel; David Collier; Matthew Shun-Shin; Simon A Thom; Justin E Davies; Darrel P Francis Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Davor Vukadinović; Bruno Scheller; Christian Ukena; Sebastian Ewen; Felix Mahfoud; Michael Böhm Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: David E Kandzari; Felix Mahfoud; Michael A Weber; Raymond Townsend; Gianfranco Parati; Naomi D L Fisher; Melvin D Lobo; Michael Bloch; Michael Böhm; Andrew S P Sharp; Roland E Schmieder; Michel Azizi; Markus P Schlaich; Vasilios Papademetriou; Ajay J Kirtane; Joost Daemen; Atul Pathak; Christian Ukena; Philipp Lurz; Guido Grassi; Martin Myers; Aloke V Finn; Marie-Claude Morice; Roxana Mehran; Peter Jüni; Gregg W Stone; Mitchell W Krucoff; Paul K Whelton; Konstantinos Tsioufis; Donald E Cutlip; Ernest Spitzer Journal: Circulation Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 29.690