DOI: 10.4244/EIJV14I7A126

Absence of proof or proof of absence? The risk of underpowered studies in cardiovascular medicine

Mario Gaudino1*, MD; Umberto Benedetto2, PhD; David P. Taggart3, PhD

In this issue of EuroIntervention Kjøller-Hansen and colleagues report the results of a post hoc analysis of the SORT OUT II trial comparing the 10-year rate of a composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularisation between patients receiving a single drug-eluting stent in the proximal left anterior descending (LAD) vs. non-proximal LAD1. The authors report no difference between the two groups (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.65-1.03).

The analysis has some limitations. The definition used by the authors is somewhat arbitrary and difficult to understand: why not compare LAD vs. non-LAD lesions? Why group the distal LAD with the circumflex or right coronary artery? Lesions of the proximal LAD are traditionally considered to have significantly higher prognostic significance than any other coronary lesions2, so the biologic rationale for the comparison is also questionable.

Most importantly however, with only 365 patients and 90 events in the proximal LAD group, the study is largely underpowered to detect even moderate differences between groups.

It is interesting to note how the authors quote in the text two surgical series comparing percutaneous intervention with minimally invasive surgical revascularisation for treatment of proximal LAD disease3,4 that, with 189 and 130 patients respectively, share both the sample size limitations and the negative conclusions of their paper.

Power is a crucial factor of every analysis. Studies with a small sample size have a high risk of type I and type II errors (Figure 1). When negative (as in this case), underpowered studies have substantial chances of missing true treatment effects. When positive, they are very likely to provide wrong estimates of the treatment effect. The limitations of underpowered studies and the risk associated with their interpretation in different fields of medical research have been described repeatedly5.

Figure 1. Correlation between sample size and p-value for a 20% assumed relative risk reduction between proximal LAD and non-proximal LAD groups.

It is worth noting that recently two very important clinical questions in the cardiovascular field have been answered using a meta-analytic approach. Head et al, combining the patient-level data of 11 randomised trials comparing coronary surgery with percutaneous interventions in the treatment of patients with multivessel disease, were able to show for the first time a significant difference in mortality in favour of the surgical arm6. Our group, by combining individual data from six trials comparing the use of the radial artery with the saphenous vein as the second conduit in coronary surgery provided the first demonstration of a clinical benefit associated with the arterial conduit based on randomised data7.

Unfortunately, the merging of individual data sets requires a substantial amount of resources, time and persistence. Despite the recommendations of scientific and professional societies and scientific journals, sharing of data is still a complex and often painful process. However, the uncertainty and risk inherent in small studies should not be underestimated, and every effort should be made to provide the scientific community and our patients with data from adequately powered studies.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


References

Volume 14 Number 7
Sep 20, 2018
Volume 14 Number 7
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

10.4244/EIJV15I11A176 Dec 6, 2019
Are all DES equal at 10-year follow-up?
Bär S et al
free
Trending articles
309.93

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00695 Nov 19, 2021
Transcatheter treatment for tricuspid valve disease
Praz F et al
free
166.7

Expert review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00690 May 15, 2022
Crush techniques for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions
Moroni F et al
free
92.2

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-20-01296 Aug 27, 2021
Management of cardiogenic shock
Thiele H et al
free
76

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00840 Sep 2, 2024
Aortic regurgitation: from mechanisms to management
Baumbach A et al
free
72.85

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00386 Feb 3, 2025
Mechanical circulatory support for complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention
Ferro E et al
free
58.3

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00344 Sep 18, 2023
Clinical outcomes of TAVI with the Myval balloon-expandable valve for non-calcified aortic regurgitation
Sanchez-Luna JP et al
free
56.65

Clinical research

10.4244/EIJ-D-20-01155 Oct 20, 2021
A deep learning algorithm for detecting acute myocardial infarction
Liu W et al
free
33.9

CLINICAL RESEARCH

10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00381 Oct 11, 2017
Stent malapposition and the risk of stent thrombosis: mechanistic insights from an in vitro model
Foin N et al
free
33.65

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00606 Jan 1, 2024
Targeting inflammation in atherosclerosis: overview, strategy and directions
Waksman R et al
free
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 7.6
2023 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2024)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2025 Europa Group - All rights reserved