Powering Bias and Clinically Important Treatment Effects in Randomized Trials of Critical Illness.

OBJECTIVES: Recurring issues in clinical trial design may bias results toward the null, yielding findings inconclusive for treatment effects. This study evaluated for powering bias among high-impact critical care trials and the associated risk of masking clinically important treatment effects. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Secondary analysis of multicenter randomized trials of critically ill adults in which mortality was the main endpoint. Trials were eligible for inclusion if published between 2008 and 2018 in leading journals. Analyses evaluated for accuracy of estimated control group mortality, adaptive sample size strategy, plausibility of predicted treatment effect, and results relative to the minimal clinically important difference. The main outcome was the mortality risk difference at the study-specific follow-up interval. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 101 included trials, 12 met statistical significance for their main endpoint, five for increased intervention-associated mortality. Most trials (77.3%) overestimated control group mortality in power calculations (observed minus predicted difference, -6.7% ± 9.8%; p < 0.01). Due to this misestimation of control group mortality, in 14 trials, the intervention would have had to prevent at least half of all deaths to achieve the hypothesized treatment effect. Seven trials prespecified adaptive sample size strategies that might have mitigated this issue. The observed risk difference for mortality fell within 5% of predicted in 20 trials, of which 16 did not reach statistical significance. Half of trials (47.0%) were powered for an absolute risk reduction greater than or equal to 10%, but this effect size was observed in only three trials with a statistically significant treatment benefit. Most trials (67.3%) could not exclude clinically important treatment benefit or harm. CONCLUSIONS: The design of most high-impact critical care trials biased results toward the null by overestimating control group mortality and powering for unrealistic treatment effects. Clinically important treatment effects often cannot be excluded.

Leadless pacemaker implantation: A feasible and reasonable option in transcatheter heart valve replacement patients.

BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) have been shown to have lower postoperative complications than traditional permanent pacemakers but there have been no studies on the outcomes of LPMs in patients with transcatheter heart valve replacements (THVRs). This study determined outcomes of LPMs compared to transvenous single-chamber pacemakers (SCPs) post-THVR. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center study including 10 patients who received LPMs post-THVR between February 2017 and August 2018 and a comparison group of 23 patients who received SCP post-THVR between July 2008 and August 2018. LPM or SCP was implanted at the discretion of electrophysiologists for atrial fibrillation with slow ventricular response or sinus node dysfunction with need for single-chamber pacing only. RESULTS: LPMs were associated with decreased tricuspid regurgitation (P = 0.04) and decreased blood loss during implantation (7.5 ± 2.5 cc for LPMs vs 16.8 ± 3.2 cc for SCPs, P = 0.03). Five LPM patients had devices positioned in the right ventricular septum as seen on transthoracic echocardiogram. Frequency of ventricular pacing was similar between LPM and SCP groups. In the LPM group, one case was complicated by a pseudoaneurysm and one death was due to noncardiac causes. There was one pneumothorax and one pocket infection in the SCP group. CONCLUSIONS: In this small retrospective study, LPMs were feasible post-THVR and found to perform as well as SCPs, had less intraprocedural blood loss, and were associated with less tricuspid regurgitation. Further, larger studies are required to follow longer-term outcomes and complications.