Abstract
AimsImplantable defibrillators are considered life-saving therapy in heart failure (CHF) patients. Surprisingly, the recent Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) reached an opposing conclusion from that of numerous other trials about their survival benefit in patients with advanced CHF. A critical analysis of common control trial design may explain this paradoxical finding, with important implications for future studies.Methods and ResultsCommon control trials compare several intervention groups to a single rather than separate control groups. Though potentially requiring fewer patients than trials using separate controls, variation in the common control group will influence all comparisons and creates correlations between findings. During subgroup analyses, this dependency of outcomes may increase belief in the presence of a real subgroup effect when, in fact, it should increase skepticism. For example, a high (r = 0.92), statistically unlikely (p = 0.052) correlation between comparisons was observed across the subgroups reported in SCD-HeFT. Such concordance between amiodarone and a defibrillator across subgroups was unexpected, given how much the effects of these treatments significantly differed from one another in the main study. This suggests the study's subgroup findings (specifically the absence of benefit from defibrillators in advanced CHF) were not necessarily a consequence of treatment; more likely, they resulted from variation in what the treatments were compared against, the common control.ConclusionCommon control trials can be more efficient than other designs, but induce dependence between treatment comparisons and require cautious interpretation.
Highlights
Implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator is considered life-saving therapy in patients with moderate to severe symptoms of congestive heart failure (CHF) and diminished ventricular function
Common control trials can be more efficient than other designs, but induce dependence between treatment comparisons and require cautious interpretation
The socalled "SCD-HeFT paradox" was the puzzling finding that survival in the subgroup of patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III CHF was not improved by receipt of an implantable defibrillator
Summary
Implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator is considered life-saving therapy in patients with moderate to severe symptoms of congestive heart failure (CHF) and diminished ventricular function. Patients with "sicker" hearts derived the largest survival benefit from such treatment [1,2,3,4]. A recent randomized trial, Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure (SCD-HeFT), reached an opposing conclusion [5]. The socalled "SCD-HeFT paradox" was the puzzling finding that survival in the subgroup of patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III CHF was not improved by receipt of an implantable defibrillator. This apparent contradiction may not, represent a true clinical phenomenon, but rather a consequence of trial design.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have