Planning future trials on the basis of conditional power of a meta-analysis quantifies
the potential impact of a future study of specific sample size on the results of the
meta-analysis of existing evidence.
1
,2
Conditional planning of future randomized clinical trials (RCTs) appears to be an
attractive approach from methodologic, ethical, and pragmatic perspectives because
it may determine the required sample size in a new trial and subsequently, it may
result in fewer subjects and required resources by avoiding unnecessary research efforts.
1
,2
Such an approach can be of special importance for interventional procedures and medical
conditions with poor survival rates and obvious obstacles in patients’ recruitment.
3
,
4
,
5
,
6
RCTs of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in patients with cardiogenic
shock (CS) fall into this category.
6
,7
In view of obvious challenges in conducting adequately powered trials in this setting
for clinically relevant outcomes, we applied conditional planning to get information
related to the magnitude of the required sample size for a hypothetical future trial
by incorporating small-scale underpowered trials of MCS in CS. We argue that conditional
planning can properly determine the range of required sample size for different levels
of powered trials and better inform investigators’ anticipations.To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to American Journal of CardiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Planning future studies based on the conditional power of a meta-analysis.Stat Med. 2013; 32: 11-24
- Using conditional power of network meta-analysis (NMA) to inform the design of future clinical trials.Biom J. 2014; 56: 973-990
- Randomized trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions that include a placebo control: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur Heart J. 2020; 41: 2556-2569
- Utilization and outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock.Am J Cardiol. 2019; 124: 505-510
- Trends, outcomes, and predictors of revascularization in cardiogenic shock.Am J Cardiol. 2020; 125: 328-335
- Mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: challenges and importance of randomized control trials.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021; 98: 1264-1274
- Mechanical assist devices for acute cardiogenic shock.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; 6CD013002
- Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.Eur Heart J. 2005; 26: 1276-1283
- A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock.Am Heart J. 2006; 152: 469.e1-469.e8
- A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 52: 1584-1588
- Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support Versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 69: 278-287
- Mechanical circulatory support with the Impella® LP5.0 pump and an intra-aortic balloon pump for cardiogenic shock in acute myocardial infarction: the IMPELLA-STIC randomized study.Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2020; 113: 237-243
- Prevention and treatment of pulmonary congestion in patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock.Eur Heart J. 2020; 41: 3753-3761
- Rationale and design of DanGer shock: Danish.Am Heart J. 2019; 214: 60-68
- SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: this document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 94: 29-37
- Understanding how cardiac arrest complicates the analysis of clinical trials of cardiogenic shock.Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020; 13e006692
- Cardiovascular clinical trials in the era of a pandemic.J Am Heart Assoc. 2020; 9e018288
- Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis.Lancet. 2014; 383: 166-175
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: July 23, 2022
Received in revised form:
June 17,
2022
Received:
May 23,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
