RESUMO
Importance: Unlike medications, procedural interventions are rarely trialed against placebo prior to becoming accepted in clinical practice. When placebo-controlled trials are eventually conducted, procedural interventions may be less effective than previously believed. Objective: To investigate the importance of including a placebo arm in trials of surgical and interventional procedures by comparing effect sizes from trials of the same procedure that do and do not include a placebo arm. Data Sources: Searches of MEDLINE and Embase identified all placebo-controlled trials for procedural interventions in any specialty of medicine and surgery from inception to March 31, 2019. A secondary search identified randomized clinical trials assessing the same intervention, condition, and end point but without a placebo arm for paired comparison. Study Selection: Placebo-controlled trials of anatomically site-specific procedures requiring skin incision or endoscopic techniques were eligible for inclusion; these were then matched to trials without placebo control that fell within prespecified limits of heterogeneity. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Random-effects meta-regression, with placebo and blinding as a fixed effect and intervention and end point grouping as random effects, was used to calculate the impact of placebo control for each end point. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points were examined in prespecified subgroups: patient-reported or health care professional-assessed outcomes, quality of life, pain, blood pressure, exercise-related outcomes, recurrent bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Results: Ninety-seven end points were matched from 72 blinded, placebo-controlled trials (hereafter, blinded) and 55 unblinded trials without placebo control (hereafter, unblinded), including 111â¯500 individual patient end points. Unblinded trials had larger standardized effect sizes than blinded trials for exercise-related outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.89; P < .001) and quality-of-life (SMD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.53; P = .003) and health care professional-assessed end points (SMD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.61; P < .001). The placebo effect accounted for 88.1%, 55.2%, and 61.3% of the observed unblinded effect size for these end points, respectively. There was no significant difference between unblinded and blinded trials for patient-reported end points (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.64; P = .07), blood pressure (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.62; P = .15), all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.72; P = .36), pain (SMD, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.57; P = .91), or recurrent bleeding events (OR, -0.12; 95% CI, -1.11 to 0.88; P = .88). Conclusions and Relevance: The magnitude of the placebo effect found in this systematic review and meta-regression was dependent on the end point. Placebo control in trials of procedural interventions had the greatest impact on exercise-related, quality-of-life, and health care professional-assessed end points. Randomized clinical trials of procedural interventions may consider placebo control accordingly.
RESUMO
AIMS: Ischaemic heart disease is the reduction of myocardial blood flow, caused by epicardial and/or microvascular disease. Both are common and prognostically important conditions, with distinct guideline-indicated management. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the current gold-standard assessment of epicardial coronary disease but is only a surrogate of flow and only predicts percentage flow changes. It cannot assess absolute (volumetric) flow or microvascular disease. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a novel method that predicts absolute coronary blood flow and microvascular resistance (MVR) in the catheter laboratory. METHODS AND RESULTS: A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model was used to predict absolute coronary flow (QCFD) and coronary MVR using data from routine invasive angiography and pressure-wire assessment. QCFD was validated in an in vitro flow circuit which incorporated patient-specific, three-dimensional printed coronary arteries; and then in vivo, in patients with coronary disease. In vitro, QCFD agreed closely with the experimental flow over all flow rates [bias +2.08 mL/min; 95% confidence interval (error range) -4.7 to +8.8 mL/min; R2 = 0.999, P < 0.001; variability coefficient <1%]. In vivo, QCFD and MVR were successfully computed in all 40 patients under baseline and hyperaemic conditions, from which coronary flow reserve (CFR) was also calculated. QCFD-derived CFR correlated closely with pressure-derived CFR (R2 = 0.92, P < 0.001). This novel method was significantly more accurate than Doppler-wire-derived flow both in vitro (±6.7 vs. ±34 mL/min) and in vivo (±0.9 vs. ±24.4 mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: Absolute coronary flow and MVR can be determined alongside FFR, in absolute units, during routine catheter laboratory assessment, without the need for additional catheters, wires or drug infusions. Using this novel method, epicardial and microvascular disease can be discriminated and quantified. This comprehensive coronary physiological assessment may enable a new level of patient stratification and management.