Comparison of Clinically Adjudicated Versus Flow-Based Adjudication of Revascularization Events in Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND In clinical trials, the optimal method of adjudicating revascularization events as clinically or nonclinically indicated (CI) is to use an independent Clinical Events Committee (CEC). However, the Academic Research Consortium-2 currently recommends using physiological assessment. The level of agreement between these methods of adjudication remains unknown. METHODS Data for all CEC adjudicated revascularization events among the 3457 patients followed-up for 2-years in the TALENT trial, and 3-years in the DESSOLVE III, PIONEER, and SYNTAX II trial were collected and readjudicated according to a quantitative flow ratio (QFR) analysis of the revascularized vessels, by an independent core lab blinded to the results of the conventional CEC adjudication. The κ statistic was used to assess the level of agreement between the 2 methods. RESULTS In total, 351 CEC-adjudicated repeat revascularization events occurred, with retrospective QFR analysis successfully performed in 212 (60.4%). According to QFR analysis, 104 events (QFR ≤0.80) were adjudicated as CI revascularizations and 108 (QFR >0.80) were not. The agreement between CEC and QFR based adjudication was just fair (κ=0.335). Between the 2 methods of adjudication, there was a disagreement of 26.4% and 7.1% in CI and non-CI revascularization, respectively. Overall, the concordance and discordance rates were 66.5% and 33.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In this event-level analysis, QFR based adjudication had a relatively low agreement with CEC adjudication with respect to whether revascularization events were CI or not. CEC adjudication appears to overestimate CI revascularization as compared with QFR adjudication. Direct comparison between these 2 strategies in terms of revascularization adjudication is warranted in future trials. REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: TALENT trial: NCT02870140, DESSOLVE III trial: NCT02385279, SYNTAX II: NCT02015832, and PIONEER trial: NCT02236975.

[1]  G. Cheon,et al.  Association of Quantitative Flow Ratio with Lesion Severity and Its Ability to Discriminate Myocardial Ischemia , 2020, Korean circulation journal.

[2]  P. Poole‐Wilson,et al.  Diagnostic criteria and adjudication process both determine published event-rates: the ACTION trial experience. , 2007, Contemporary clinical trials.

[3]  M. Eliasziw,et al.  Outcome assessment by central adjudicators in randomised stroke trials: Simulation of differential and non-differential misclassification , 2020, European stroke journal.

[4]  Bram D. Zuckerman,et al.  Clinical event adjudication in cardiovascular device trials: An Food and Drug Administration perspective. , 2017, American heart journal.

[5]  Eric E. Adelman,et al.  Assessment of the End Point Adjudication Process on the Results of the Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke (POINT) Trial , 2019, JAMA network open.

[6]  P. Serruys,et al.  BuMA Supreme biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus a durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent: three-year clinical outcomes of the PIONEER trial. , 2020, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[7]  P. Serruys,et al.  Safety and efficacy of a sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with ultra-thin strut for treatment of atherosclerotic lesions (TALENT): a prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial , 2019, The Lancet.

[8]  J. Reiber,et al.  Clinical Implication of Quantitative Flow Ratio After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for 3-Vessel Disease. , 2019, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[9]  C. Held,et al.  Lack of Concordance Between Local Investigators, Angiographic Core Laboratory, and Clinical Event Committee in the Assessment of Stent Thrombosis: Results From the TRACER Angiographic Substudy , 2016, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[10]  G. Campo,et al.  Prognostic Value of QFR Measured Immediately After Successful Stent Implantation: The International Multicenter Prospective HAWKEYE Study. , 2019, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[11]  S. Achenbach,et al.  Accuracy of Fractional Flow Reserve Derived From Coronary Angiography , 2019, Circulation.

[12]  Volker Klauss,et al.  Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[13]  Volkmar Falk,et al.  Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (esc) and the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery (eacts) Developed with the Special Contribution of the European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular I , 2022 .

[14]  M. Oudkerk,et al.  Computational quantitative flow ratio to assess functional severity of coronary artery stenosis. , 2018, International journal of cardiology.

[15]  B. Uretsky,et al.  Angio-Based Fractional Flow Reserve, Functional Pattern of Coronary Artery Disease, and Prediction of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Result: a Proof-of-Concept Study , 2021, Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy.

[16]  B. Kahan,et al.  A comparison of approaches for adjudicating outcomes in clinical trials , 2017, Trials.

[17]  S. Yusuf,et al.  Evaluating the benefit of event adjudication of cardiovascular outcomes in large simple RCTs , 2009, Clinical trials.

[18]  J. Escaned,et al.  Diagnostic Agreement of Quantitative Flow Ratio With Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave‐Free Ratio , 2019, Journal of the American Heart Association : Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease.

[19]  P. Serruys,et al.  Clinical outcomes of state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularisation in patients with three-vessel disease: two-year follow-up of the SYNTAX II study. , 2019, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[20]  Lehana Thabane,et al.  An introduction to multiplicity issues in clinical trials: the what, why, when and how. , 2016, International journal of epidemiology.

[21]  T. Kakuta,et al.  Determinants of visual‐functional mismatches as assessed by coronary angiography and quantitative flow ratio , 2020, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[22]  H. Bøtker,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of In‐Procedure Angiography‐Derived Quantitative Flow Reserve Compared to Pressure‐Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: The FAVOR II Europe‐Japan Study , 2018, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[23]  I. Boutron,et al.  Inadequate planning and reporting of adjudication committees in clinical trials: recommendation proposal. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[24]  M. Rutten,et al.  Validation of 3-Dimensional Quantitative Coronary Angiography based software to calculate Fractional Flow Reserve: Fast Assessment of STenosis severity (FAST)-study. , 2020, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[25]  W. Wijns,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio for assessment of coronary stenosis significance from a single angiographic view: A novel method based on bifurcation fractal law , 2021, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[26]  P. Serruys,et al.  Comparison of Investigator-Reported and Clinical Event Committee-Adjudicated Outcome Events in GLASSY. , 2021, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[27]  T. Kakuta,et al.  Significance of Microvascular Function in Visual—Functional Mismatch Between Invasive Coronary Angiography and Fractional Flow Reserve , 2017, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[28]  Emil N. Holck,et al.  Evaluation of Coronary Artery Stenosis by Quantitative Flow Ratio During Invasive Coronary Angiography , 2018, Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging.

[29]  J. Reiber,et al.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Fast Computational Approaches to Derive Fractional Flow Reserve From Diagnostic Coronary Angiography: The International Multicenter FAVOR Pilot Study. , 2016, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[30]  R. Mehran,et al.  Clinical event committees in coronary stent trials: insights and recommendations based on experience in an unselected study population. , 2012, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[31]  A. Jeremias,et al.  Use of the Instantaneous Wave‐free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  Patrick W Serruys,et al.  Report of a European Society of Cardiology-European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions task force on the evaluation of coronary stents in Europe: executive summary. , 2015, European heart journal.

[33]  J. Spertus,et al.  Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials: The Academic Research Consortium-2 Consensus Document , 2018, European heart journal.

[34]  A. M. Leone,et al.  Quantitative Flow Ratio Identifies Nonculprit Coronary Lesions Requiring Revascularization in Patients With ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease , 2018, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[35]  P. Serruys,et al.  Clinical endpoint adjudication in a contemporary all-comers coronary stent investigation: methodology and external validation. , 2013, Contemporary Clinical Trials.

[36]  P. Serruys,et al.  Final 3-Year Outcomes of MiStent Biodegradable Polymer Crystalline Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Xience Permanent Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent , 2020, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[37]  Shengshou Hu,et al.  Angiography-Based Quantitative Flow Ratio for Online Assessment of Coronary Stenosis : FAVOR II China Study , 2017 .

[38]  T. Akasaka,et al.  QFR Versus FFR Derived From Computed Tomography for Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis. , 2019, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.