Journal of Cardiac Failure
Volume 14, Issue 5 , Pages 368-372, June 2008

A Global Ranking Approach to End Points in Trials of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

  • G. Michael Felker, MD, MHS

      Affiliations

    • Duke Clinical Research Institute
    • Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: G. Michael Felker, MD, MHS, Duke Clinical Research Institute, 2400 Pratt St, Room 0311 Terrace Level, Durham, NC 27705.
  • ,
  • Kevin J. Anstrom, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Duke Clinical Research Institute
  • ,
  • Joseph G. Rogers, MD

      Affiliations

    • Duke Clinical Research Institute
    • Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC

Received 2 October 2007; received in revised form 21 December 2007; accepted 15 January 2008. published online 07 April 2008.

Abstract 

Background

Although previous studies of mechanical circulatory support devices (MCSDs) have used all-cause mortality as a primary end point, trends in device technology and implementation will increasingly necessitate the use of composite end points for MCSD studies. The ideal composite end point for studies of MCSDs is uncertain.

Methods and Results

We reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of traditional composite end points in MCSD studies from both a clinical and statistical perspective. Although composite end points may increase statistical power, they also introduce potential problems in interpretation of data, and in some situations may interpret a given clinical course in ways very different than it would be viewed by patients or providers. A global ranking end point, which ranks various aspects of the clinical course based on a prespecified hierarchical ranking system, may provide many of the advantages of composite end points while avoiding many of the pitfalls. One version of such an end point for use in MCSD studies is proposed.

Conclusions

Use of a global ranking end point for incorporating various components of the clinical course into a single end point retains much of the benefit of composite end points while avoiding many of the limitations associated with the use of composites. Adoption of such end points may facilitate the development of MCSD therapy.

Key Words: Clinical trials, ventricular assist device, end points, heart failure

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 All decisions regarding this manuscript were made by a guest editor.Dr Felker is supported in part by NIH K23 HL072357.

PII: S1071-9164(08)00027-4

doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2008.01.009

Journal of Cardiac Failure
Volume 14, Issue 5 , Pages 368-372, June 2008