RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Clinical and imaging surveillance practices following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) vary considerably and compliance with recommended lifelong surveillance is poor. The aim of this study was to develop a dynamic prognostic model to enable stratification of patients at risk of future secondary aortic rupture or the need for intervention to prevent rupture (rupture-preventing reintervention) to enable the development of personalized surveillance intervals. METHODS: Baseline data and repeat measurements of postoperative aneurysm sac diameter from the EVAR-1 and EVAR-2 trials were used to develop the model, with external validation in a cohort from a single-centre vascular database. Longitudinal mixed-effects models were fitted to trajectories of sac diameter, and model-predicted sac diameter and rate of growth were used in prognostic Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Some 785 patients from the EVAR trials were included, of whom 155 (19·7 per cent) experienced at least one rupture or required a rupture-preventing reintervention during follow-up. An increased risk was associated with preoperative AAA size, rate of sac growth and the number of previously detected complications. A prognostic model using predicted sac growth alone had good discrimination at 2 years (C-index 0·68), 3 years (C-index 0·72) and 5 years (C-index 0·75) after operation and had excellent external validation (C-index 0·76-0·79). More than 5 years after operation, growth rates above 1 mm/year had a sensitivity of over 80 per cent and specificity over 50 per cent in identifying events occurring within 2 years. CONCLUSION: Secondary sac growth is an important predictor of rupture or rupture-preventing reintervention to enable the development of personalized surveillance intervals. A dynamic prognostic model has the potential to tailor surveillance by identifying a large proportion of patients who may require less intensive follow-up.
Assuntos
Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/cirurgia , Ruptura Aórtica/etiologia , Procedimentos Endovasculares , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Reoperação , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/complicações , Ruptura Aórtica/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Modelos Estatísticos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/prevenção & controle , Prognóstico , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Methodology for the meta-analysis of individual patient data with survival end-points is proposed. Motivated by questions about the reliance on hazard ratios as summary measures of treatment effects, a parametric approach is considered and percentile ratios are introduced as an alternative to hazard ratios. The generalized log-gamma model, which includes many common time-to-event distributions as special cases, is discussed in detail. Likelihood inference for percentile ratios is outlined. The proposed methodology is used for a meta-analysis of glioma data that was one of the studies which motivated this work. A simulation study exploring the validity of the proposed methodology is available electronically.
Assuntos
Metanálise como Assunto , Modelos Estatísticos , Resultado do Tratamento , Algoritmos , Simulação por Computador , Glioma/tratamento farmacológico , Glioma/mortalidade , Glioma/terapia , Humanos , Funções Verossimilhança , Modelos Logísticos , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Análise de Regressão , Distribuições Estatísticas , Taxa de SobrevidaRESUMO
Meta-analyses that simultaneously compare multiple treatments (usually referred to as network meta-analyses or mixed treatment comparisons) are becoming increasingly common. An important component of a network meta-analysis is an assessment of the extent to which different sources of evidence are compatible, both substantively and statistically. A simple indirect comparison may be confounded if the studies involving one of the treatments of interest are fundamentally different from the studies involving the other treatment of interest. Here, we discuss methods for addressing inconsistency of evidence from comparative studies of different treatments. We define and review basic concepts of heterogeneity and inconsistency, and attempt to introduce a distinction between 'loop inconsistency' and 'design inconsistency'. We then propose that the notion of design-by-treatment interaction provides a useful general framework for investigating inconsistency. In particular, using design-by-treatment interactions successfully addresses complications that arise from the presence of multi-arm trials in an evidence network. We show how the inconsistency model proposed by Lu and Ades is a restricted version of our full design-by-treatment interaction model and that there may be several distinct Lu-Ades models for any particular data set. We introduce novel graphical methods for depicting networks of evidence, clearly depicting multi-arm trials and illustrating where there is potential for inconsistency to arise. We apply various inconsistency models to data from trials of different comparisons among four smoking cessation interventions and show that models seeking to address loop inconsistency alone can run into problems. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.