Direct comparison of predictive performance of PRECISE-DAPT versus PARIS versus CREDO-Kyoto: a subanalysis of the ReCre8 trial

Background

Multiple scores have been proposed to guide risk stratification after percutaneous coronary intervention. This study assessed the performance of the PRECISE-DAPT, PARIS and CREDO-Kyoto risk scores to predict post-discharge ischaemic or bleeding events.

Methods

A total of 1491 patients treated with latest-generation drug-eluting stent implantation were evaluated. Risk scores for post-discharge ischaemic or bleeding events were calculated and directly compared. Prognostic performance of both risk scores was assessed with calibration, Harrell’s c‑statistics net reclassification index and decision curve analyses.

Results

Post-discharge ischaemic events occurred in 56 patients (3.8%) and post-discharge bleeding events in 34 patients (2.3%) within the first year after the invasive procedure. C‑statistics for the PARIS ischaemic risk score was marginal (0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51–0.68), whereas the CREDO-Kyoto ischaemic risk score was moderate (0.68, 95% CI 0.60–0.75). With regard to post-discharge bleeding events, CREDO-Kyoto displayed moderate discrimination (c-statistic 0.67, 95% CI 0.56–0.77), whereas PRECISE-DAPT (0.59, 95% CI 0.48–0.69) and PARIS (0.55, 95% CI 0.44–0.65) had a marginal discriminative capacity. Net reclassification index and decision curve analysis favoured CREDO-Kyoto-derived bleeding risk assessment.

Conclusion

In this contemporary all-comer population, PARIS and PRECISE-DAPT risk scores were not resilient to independent testing for post-discharge bleeding events. CREDO-Kyoto-derived risk stratification was associated with a moderate predictive capability for post-discharge ischaemic or bleeding events. Future studies are warranted to improve risk stratification with more focus on robustness and rigorous testing.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01486-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Statistical analysis of Goal Attainment Scaling endpoints in randomised trials

Goal Attainment Scaling is an assessment instrument to evaluate interventions on the basis of individual, patient-specific goals. The attainment of these goals is mapped in a pre-specified way to attainment levels on an ordinal scale, which is common to all goals. This approach is patient-centred and allows one to integrate the outcomes of patients with very heterogeneous symptoms. The latter is of particular importance in clinical trials in rare diseases because it enables larger sample sizes by including a broader patient population. In this paper, we focus on the statistical analysis of Goal Attainment Scaling outcomes for the comparison of two treatments in randomised clinical trials. Building on a general statistical model, we investigate the properties of different hypothesis testing approaches. Additionally, we propose a latent variable approach to generate Goal Attainment Scaling data in a simulation study, to assess the impact of model parameters such as the number of goals per patient and their correlation, the choice of discretisation thresholds and the type of design (parallel group or cross-over). Based on our findings, we give recommendations for the design of clinical trials with a Goal Attainment Scaling endpoint. Furthermore, we discuss an application of Goal Attainment Scaling in a clinical trial in mastocytosis.