A composite clinical endpoint including death, stroke, poor ejection fraction, reinfarction, and heart failure may be more useful than left ventricular ejection fraction in reperfusion trials.
Is a composite clinical endpoint more useful than left ventricular ejection fraction as a surrogate in thrombolytic therapy comparative trials?
A composite clinical endpoint including death, stroke, poor EF, reinfarction, and heart failure is proposed as a more reliable alternative to LVEF alone for reperfusion therapy trials.
In the era of comparative and adjunctive trials in reperfusion therapy, the need to develop alternative end points for mortality reduction is clear. Left ventricular ejection fraction, which has been commonly used as a surrogate, is problematic due to missing values, technically inadequate studies, and lack of correlation with mortality results in controlled reperfusion trials performed to date. In this paper, we present a composite clinical end point that includes, in order, severity of adverse outcome death, hemorrhagic stroke, nonhemorrhagic stroke, poor ejection fraction (less than 30%), reinfarction, heart failure, and pulmonary edema. Such a composite index may be useful to detect true therapeutic benefit in reperfusion trials without necessitating greater than 20-30,000 patient enrollment.
Califf et al. (Thu,) conducted a review in Thrombolytic therapy. Composite clinical end point vs. Left ventricular ejection fraction was evaluated on Composite clinical end point (death, hemorrhagic stroke, nonhemorrhagic stroke, poor ejection fraction <30%, reinfarction, heart failure, pulmonary edema). A composite clinical endpoint including death, stroke, poor ejection fraction, reinfarction, and heart failure may be more useful than left ventricular ejection fraction in reperfusion trials.