Picking the Good Apples: Statistics Versus Good Judgment in Choosing Stent Operators for a Multicenter Clinical Trial

Academic Article

Abstract

  • © 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.METHODS—: The ability to discriminate between stent operators who can successfully meet the published guideline of <3% combined rate of stroke and death is calculated under the binomial distribution, based on a small consecutive case series (n=24 patients).RESULTS—: A criterion of ≤2 stroke or death events among the 24 patients (<8% event rate) was required of operators. Setting such a high criterion, however, ensures an inability to exclude operators who cannot meet the criteria. In fact, if a good operator is defined as having a 2% event rate and a poor operator as a 6% event rate, even a series of 240 patients would (on average) still exclude 5.4% of the good operators and include 4.6% of the poor operators.CONCLUSIONS—: The low periprocedural event rates in the trial suggest success in separating skillful operators from less skillful. However, it seems unlikely that statistical assessment of event rates in the lead-in contributed to successful selection, but rather successful selection was more likely because of peer review of subjective and other factors including patient volume and technical approaches.CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION—: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE—: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial was completed with a low stroke and death rate. A lead-in series of patients receiving carotid artery stenting was used to select the physician-operators for the study, where performance was evaluated by complication rates and by peer review of cases. Herein, we assess the potential contribution of statistical evaluation of complication rates.
  • Digital Object Identifier (doi)

    Author List

  • Howard G; Voeks JH; Meschia JF; Howard VJ; Brott TG