Impact of recruitment and retention on all-cause mortality in a large all-comers randomised controlled trial: insights from the GLOBAL LEADERS trial
Objective Recruitment and retention in trials may bias the results and subsequently complicate their interpretation and validity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of recruitment and retention on all-cause mortality in a large all-comers trial. Methods The recruitment rate in each inve...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical research in cardiology 2020-07, Vol.109 (7), p.918-929 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objective
Recruitment and retention in trials may bias the results and subsequently complicate their interpretation and validity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of recruitment and retention on all-cause mortality in a large all-comers trial.
Methods
The recruitment rate in each investigating center of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial was assessed and the 130 centers were subdivided into low and high recruiters according to the median, with all-cause mortality then compared between the two groups. Vital status was obtained from public records in patients with incomplete follow-up.
Results
The trial randomized 15,991 (7.86%) of 203,483 eligible patients with percutaneous coronary intervention during the recruitment period, of whom 15,267 (95.47%) completed follow-up, 23 (0.14%) patients withdrew consent and formally requested to be deleted from the database; 183 (1.14%) withdrew consent but only objected to future data collection; 303 (1.89%) discontinued the study; and 215 (1.34%) were lost to follow-up. Vital status was finally obtained in all but 31 patients (99.81%). Patients from low recruiters had a significantly lower all-cause mortality than high ones (2.26% vs. 3.24%; hazard ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.55–0.87;
p
= 0.002). There was a significant difference in all-cause mortality among the incomplete follow-up groups (log-rank
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 1861-0684 1861-0692 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00392-019-01585-w |