0
Letters |

Reviparin in Acute Myocardial InfarctionReviparin in Acute Myocardial Infarction

JAMA. 2005;293(21):2595-2596. doi:10.1001/jama.293.21.2595-a
Text Size: A A A
Published online

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Letters Section Editor: Robert M. Golub, MD, Senior Editor.

REVIPARIN IN ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION

To the Editor: The Clinical Trial of Reviparin and Metabolic Modulation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment Evaluation (CREATE)1 concludes that, in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), reviparin reduces overall mortality and reinfarction at 7 days (P = .005) and 30 days (P = .001). This is a megatrial involving 15 570 patients designed to detect a 15% relative risk (RR) reduction on the composite outcome at 7 days with a power of 93%. Although this conclusion is correct based on the applied analysis, it is important to examine the magnitude of the composite mortality reduction. The CREATE trial is similar to the Facile Interpretation of Statistical Hypotheses (FISH) trial postulated by Diamond and Kaul.2 The CREATE trial shows an absolute reduction in the first coprimary composite outcome at 7 days of 1.4%. Using a Bayesian approach with a noninformative prior (prior log odds ratio [OR] distribution with mean, 0 and SD, 10), as the CREATE trial was the first and only trial of this treatment that had been conducted, the posterior probability for more than 15% benefit is only 41%, whereas it is 95% for a threshold of benefit of 6%.

In addition, considering the 24 major bleeding events not included in the primary outcomes (17 reviparin and 7 placebo) and the same prior distribution, there is a 95% probability of a 12% increase in the RR of major bleeding in the reviparin group (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.0-5.5; P = .05). Therefore, reading the CREATE study in terms of probability, it seems that patients treated in the reviparin group are 95% likely to have had a 6% RR reduction in the first composite outcome, and a 12% RR increase of life-threatening (nonfatal) bleeding.

The CREATE trial is significant because it demonstrates a “nonzero” positive benefit of low-molecular-weight heparin in myocardial infarction. However, it should not be considered conclusive and once again raises the debate between frequentist and Bayesian approaches, due to the large sample size and its influence on the P value.3 In megatrials, the frequentist approach cannot quantify the likelihood of detecting a significant effect. This is a real issue when the treatment under investigation has potentially dangerous adverse effects. In this case, previous studies on low-molecular-weight heparin could be used as prior distributions, helping to solve in a definitive way the risk-benefit ratio for the use of low-molecular-weight heparin. A Bayesian (meta) analysis of low-molecular-weight heparin as part of myocardial infarction treatment is now possible and advisable.

References
The CREATE Trial Group Investigators.  Effects of reviparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, on mortality, reinfarction, and strokes in patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting with ST-segment elevation.  JAMA. 2005;293427-436
PubMed
Diamond GA, Kaul S. Prior convictions: Bayesian approach to the analysis and interpretation of clinical megatrials.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;431929-1939
PubMed
Goodman SN. Toward evidence-based medical statistics, 1: the P value fallacy.  Ann Intern Med. 1999;130995-1004
PubMed

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

The CREATE Trial Group Investigators.  Effects of reviparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, on mortality, reinfarction, and strokes in patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting with ST-segment elevation.  JAMA. 2005;293427-436
PubMed
Diamond GA, Kaul S. Prior convictions: Bayesian approach to the analysis and interpretation of clinical megatrials.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;431929-1939
PubMed
Goodman SN. Toward evidence-based medical statistics, 1: the P value fallacy.  Ann Intern Med. 1999;130995-1004
PubMed
CME Course for:


You need to register in order to view this quiz.


To understand the clinical management of acute heart failure syndromes.
Accreditation Information The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
To view and print your certificate and access a summary of your CME courses go to My CME.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s “Cited By” API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Response

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.