Browsing by Author "McMurray, John JV"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Predicting Outcomes Over Time in Patients With Heart Failure, Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction, or Both Following Acute Myocardial Infarction.
    (J Am Heart Assoc, 2016-06-27) Lopes, Renato D; Pieper, Karen S; Stevens, Susanna R; Solomon, Scott D; McMurray, John JV; Pfeffer, Marc A; Leimberger, Jeffrey D; Velazquez, Eric J
    BACKGROUND: Most studies of risk assessment or stratification in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) have been static and fail to account for the evolving nature of clinical events and care processes. We sought to identify predictors of mortality, cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI, and cardiovascular death or nonfatal heart failure (HF) over time in patients with HF, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, or both post-MI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using data from the VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial, we developed models to estimate the association between patient characteristics and the likelihood of experiencing an event from the time of a follow-up visit until the next visit. The intervals are: hospital arrival to discharge or 14 days, whichever occurs first; hospital discharge to 30 days; 30 days to 6 months; and 6 months to 3 years. Models were also developed to predict the entire 3-year follow-up period using baseline information. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling was used throughout with Wald chi-squares as the comparator of strength for each predictor. For the baseline model of overall mortality, the 3 strongest predictors were age (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.28-1.42; P<0.0001), baseline heart rate (adjusted HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.14-1.21; P<0.0001), and creatinine clearance (≤100 mL/min; adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84-0.89; P<0.0001). According to the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) and net reclassification improvement (NRI) indices, the updated model had significant improvement over the model with baseline covariates only in all follow-up periods and with all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patient information assessed closest to the time of the outcome was more valuable in predicting death when compared with information obtained at the time of the index hospitalization. Using updated patient information improves prognosis over using only the information available at the time of the index event.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Randomized Trials Versus Common Sense and Clinical Observation: JACC Review Topic of the Week.
    (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2020-08) Fanaroff, Alexander C; Califf, Robert M; Harrington, Robert A; Granger, Christopher B; McMurray, John JV; Patel, Manesh R; Bhatt, Deepak L; Windecker, Stephan; Hernandez, Adrian F; Gibson, C Michael; Alexander, John H; Lopes, Renato D
    Concerns about the external validity of traditional randomized clinical trials (RCTs), together with the widespread availability of real-world data and advanced data analytic tools, have led to claims that common sense and clinical observation, rather than RCTs, should be the preferred method to generate evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, over the past 4 decades, results from well-done RCTs have repeatedly contradicted practices supported by common sense and clinical observation. Common sense and clinical observation fail for several reasons: incomplete understanding of pathophysiology, biases and unmeasured confounding in observational research, and failure to understand risks and benefits of treatments within complex systems. Concerns about traditional RCT models are legitimate, but randomization remains a critical tool to understand the causal relationship between treatments and outcomes. Instead, development and promulgation of tools to apply randomization to real-world data are needed to build the best evidence base in cardiovascular medicine.