This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Connolly, S. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Connolly, S. J. Related Collections Arrhythmias, clinical electrophysiology, drugs

(Circulation. 2006;113:764-766.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Use and Misuse of Surrogate Outcomes in Arrhythmia Trials

Stuart J. Connolly, MD, FRCPC

From the Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Correspondence to Stuart J. Connolly, MD, FRCPC, 237 Barton St E, Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2X2, Canada. E-mail connostu@phri.ca

Key Words: Editorials • arrhythmia • trials

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

Rigorous design and careful execution of clinical trials have led to major advances in cardiovascular medicine over the past few decades. A pivotal design feature of any trial is the choice of outcomes. We place great value on reduction of mortality and somewhat less on outcomes, such as myocardial infarction, that lead to major morbidity and death. Changes in quality of life and functional capacity are harder to measure but are clinically meaningful in many situations. On the other hand, surrogate outcomes have very low status in this hierarchy. These are outcomes that "stand in" for more clinically relevant outcomes. The key feature of a surrogate outcome is that unproven assumptions are necessary to connect a change in the surrogate to a change in the accepted clinical outcome. The problem of using surrogate outcomes has been highlighted by situations in which the assumptions have been subsequently discredited. In the early 1980s, on the basis of numerous studies that demonstrated an association between ventricular premature depolarization (VPD) frequency and mortality in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients, VPD suppression became an accepted method for antiarrhythmic drug selection in clinical practice. Even though VPDs were usually asymptomatic, VPD suppression served as a primary outcome measure in clinical trials that resulted in regulatory approval of antiarrhythmic drugs.¹ The underlying assumption that VPD suppression was associated with a reduction in mortality was totally upended when the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) demonstrated that several drugs, which were highly effective at VPD suppression, actually increased mortality after . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. J. Silka and Y. Bar-Cohen Should patients with congenital heart disease and a systemic ventricular ejection fraction less than 30% undergo prophylactic implantation of an ICD?: Patients With Congenital Heart Disease and a Systemic Ventricular Ejection Fraction Less Than 30% Should Undergo Prophylactic Implantation of an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, October 1, 2008; 1(4): 298 - 306. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. C. Saumarez, M. Pytkowski, M. Sterlinski, J. P. Bourke, J. R. Clague, S. M. Cobbe, D. T. Connelly, M. J. Griffith, P. P. McKeown, K. McLeod, et al. Paced ventricular electrogram fractionation predicts sudden cardiac death in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy Eur. Heart J., July 1, 2008; 29(13): 1653 - 1661. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]