[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 50.16.107.222. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Figure. Results of Publication Analysis. CARE-HF indicates Cardiac Resynchronization in Heart Failure Study; COMPANION, Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; ICD, implantable cardioverter/defibrillator; MADIT-CRT, Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; MIRACLE, Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation; MIRACLE ICD, Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation; RAFT, Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial; RethinQ, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Heart Failure and Narrow QRS; and REVERSE, Resynchronization Reverses Remodeling in Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

Figure. Results of Publication Analysis. CARE-HF indicates Cardiac Resynchronization in Heart Failure Study; COMPANION, Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; ICD, implantable cardioverter/defibrillator; MADIT-CRT, Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; MIRACLE, Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation; MIRACLE ICD, Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation; RAFT, Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial; RethinQ, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Heart Failure and Narrow QRS; and REVERSE, Resynchronization Reverses Remodeling in Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

1.
Swindle JP, Rich MW, McCann P, Burroughs TE, Hauptman PJ. Implantable cardiac device procedures in older patients: use and in-hospital outcomes.  Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(7):631-637PubMedArticle
2.
Reynolds MR, Cohen DJ, Kugelmass AD,  et al.  The frequency and incremental cost of major complications among Medicare beneficiaries receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(12):2493-2497PubMedArticle
3.
Wilson JR. Rhetorical strategies used in the reporting of implantable defibrillator primary prevention trials.  Am J CardiolIn pressPubMed
4.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D.CONSORT Group.  CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials.  Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(11):726-732PubMed
5.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Dvorin EL, Welch HG. Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks.  BMJ. 2006;333(7581):1248PubMedArticle
6.
Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, Ravaud P. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials.  Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1756-1761PubMedArticle
7.
Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes.  JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058-2064PubMedArticle
8.
Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL,  et al; MIRACLE Study Group. Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation.  Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2002;346(24):1845-1853PubMedArticle
9.
Young JB, Abraham WT, Smith AL,  et al; Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation (MIRACLE ICD) Trial Investigators.  Combined cardiac resynchronization and implantable cardioversion defibrillation in advanced chronic heart failure: the MIRACLE ICD Trial.  JAMA. 2003;289(20):2685-2694PubMedArticle
10.
Higgins SL, Hummel JD, Niazi IK,  et al.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy for the treatment of heart failure in patients with intraventricular conduction delay and malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(8):1454-1459PubMedArticle
11.
Abraham WT, Young JB, León AR,  et al; Multicenter InSync ICD II Study Group.  Effects of cardiac resynchronization on disease progression in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, an indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and mildly symptomatic chronic heart failure.  Circulation. 2004;110(18):2864-2868PubMedArticle
12.
Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J,  et al; Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2004;350(21):2140-2150PubMedArticle
13.
Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E,  et al; Cardiac Resynchronization-Heart Failure (CARE-HF) Study Investigators.  The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2005;352(15):1539-1549PubMedArticle
14.
Beshai JF, Grimm RA, Nagueh SF,  et al; RethinQ Study Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy in heart failure with narrow QRS complexes.  N Engl J Med. 2007;357(24):2461-2471PubMedArticle
15.
Linde C, Abraham WT, Gold MR, St John Sutton M, Ghio S, Daubert C. REVERSE (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic left vEntricular dysfunction) Study Group.  Randomized trial of cardiac resynchronization in mildly symptomatic heart failure patients and in asymptomatic patients with left ventricular dysfunction and previous heart failure symptoms.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(23):1834-1843PubMedArticle
16.
Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS,  et al; MADIT-CRT Trial Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events.  N Engl J Med. 2009;361(14):1329-1338PubMedArticle
17.
Tang ASL, Wells GA, Talajic M,  et al; Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for mild-to-moderate heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2010;363(25):2385-2395PubMedArticle
Research Letters
Sep 12, 2011

Rhetorical Techniques Used in the Reporting of Cardiac Resynchronization Trials

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliation: Dr Wilson is an independent working researcher working out of Brentwood, Tennessee.

Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(16):1500-1502. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.248

New cardiac procedures are often used excessively, suggesting that physicians tend to overestimate the benefits of new procedures.1,2 Randomized trial reports may contribute to this problem by exaggerating procedural benefits. I have previously noted that a variety of rhetorical strategies that emphasize device benefits were used in reporting implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) primary prevention trials, including message framing, underreporting of complications, and interpretation bias.3 Other investigators have also noted widespread use of such techniques in randomized trial reports.47 The purpose of this report was to determine the extent to which rhetorical strategies were used to emphasize device benefits in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) trial reports.

Methods

The methods used in this study have been described in detail previously.3 In brief, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Trial Register and Library, and CRT reviews were searched for all randomized trials in which CRT was compared with no pacing; enrollment was more than 100 patients; and the primary outcome was survival, functional capacity, and/or hospitalization.

Publications were analyzed for the presence of 4 rhetorical strategies that can be used to emphasize treatment efficacy: message framing, use of ratios rather than absolute values to report results, underreporting of harms, and interpretation bias. Message framing was considered present when the trial objective, stated in the abstract or introduction, failed to include the evaluation of CRT harms and/or the introduction only included background information supporting CRT efficacy.

The exclusive use of ratios to present primary outcome results was considered evidence that ratios were used to emphasize CRT benefits. Complication data were considered to be underreported when the abstract did not include information about CRT complications and/or the results section did not contain complete information about the rates of unsuccessful device implantation, procedural complications, and/or postimplant complications. Interpretative bias was considered present when (1) important trial limitations were not mentioned and discussed; (2) CRT complications were not discussed despite the presence of significant device complications in the study population; (3) the risks vs benefits of CRT therapy were not compared, including how the frequency of risks should alter use of CRTs; (4) there was no mention that CRT benefits are likely to be less in clinical practice than in a clinical trial; and/or (5) trial conclusions indicated that CRT therapy is unequivocally beneficial despite failure of the trial to demonstrate a significant effect on the primary efficacy end point.

Results

The search criteria identified 10 trial publications (Figure).817 Evidence of message framing was noted in both abstracts and introductory sections. In 8 abstracts and 9 introductory sections, the stated objective of the trial was to evaluate CRT benefits with no mention of evaluating CRT harms. In 7 introductory sections, only background information that supported CRT efficacy is noted, with no mention of negative CRT study findings or reports of high CRT complication rates. Primary end point data were reported using absolute values in the results section of 9 publications.

Device-related adverse events were underreported. Adverse events from CRT are not mentioned in 8 of the publication abstracts. Unsuccessful initial CRT implant rates are described in all publications, with a mean 8% of patients having an unsuccessful implant (range, 1%-14%). Procedural complication rates and a description of the complications are provided in only 6 publications, with a mean 15.7% of patients experiencing complications (range, 4%-28%). Three additional publications provide partial descriptions of procedural complications. Postimplant complication data are clearly reported in only 4 publications, with a mean 26.1% of patients experiencing complications (range, 7%-46%). In 1 publication, annualized complication event rates are noted but without describing specific complications. In 1 publication, composite procedural and postprocedural complications rates are reported. In all 10 publications, only 1 table of a total 51 tables and figures is used to describe adverse events.

Trial interpretation in all publications appeared to be biased in favor of CRT efficacy. Six of the publications contain no mention of device adverse effects in the discussion section. The other 4 publications mention CRT adverse effects but do not include any further commentary such as a comparison of the percentage of patients who improved with CRT therapy vs the percentage who experienced device adverse effects, any discussion of how the presence of adverse effects should influence device use, or any comment that CRT benefits are likely to be less in clinical practice than in a randomized trial.

In the MIRACLE (Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation),8 MIRACLE ICD (Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation),9 MIRACLE ICD II,11 and REVERSE (Resynchronization Reverses Remodeling in Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction)15 trials, patients were randomized only after successful device implantation with no discussion of how such a design reduces the ability to generalize results. The CONTAK CD10 study was changed from a crossover to a parallel design, and the primary end point altered with no discussion of the impact on trial analysis.

Comment

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is a relatively new treatment for heart failure that was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2001. This approval is based on the pivotal clinical trials that discuss risks and benefits of CRT.

My analysis of these trials and publications suggests that rhetorical techniques were used to emphasize the benefits and minimize the harms of CRT. My recent analysis of implantable defibrillator primary prevention trial reports led to similar conclusions.3 In fact, the use of specific rhetorical strategies was strikingly similar in the CRT and ICD reports, particularly the tendency to underreport complications and to ignore device complications in discussion sections.

This use of rhetoric has likely contributed to an overly optimistic view of CRT and ICD benefits and may help to explain why cardiac devices are frequently implanted in patient groups that were excluded from device trials, such as patients older than 80 years, and why device implant complication rates in the Medicare population are higher than expected.1,2

Back to top
Article Information

Correspondence: Dr Wilson, 503 Dekemont Ln, Brentwood, TN 37027 (jwilson870@hotmail.com).

Published Online: June 13, 2011. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.248

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

References
1.
Swindle JP, Rich MW, McCann P, Burroughs TE, Hauptman PJ. Implantable cardiac device procedures in older patients: use and in-hospital outcomes.  Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(7):631-637PubMedArticle
2.
Reynolds MR, Cohen DJ, Kugelmass AD,  et al.  The frequency and incremental cost of major complications among Medicare beneficiaries receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(12):2493-2497PubMedArticle
3.
Wilson JR. Rhetorical strategies used in the reporting of implantable defibrillator primary prevention trials.  Am J CardiolIn pressPubMed
4.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D.CONSORT Group.  CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials.  Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(11):726-732PubMed
5.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Dvorin EL, Welch HG. Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks.  BMJ. 2006;333(7581):1248PubMedArticle
6.
Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, Ravaud P. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials.  Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1756-1761PubMedArticle
7.
Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes.  JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058-2064PubMedArticle
8.
Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL,  et al; MIRACLE Study Group. Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation.  Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2002;346(24):1845-1853PubMedArticle
9.
Young JB, Abraham WT, Smith AL,  et al; Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation (MIRACLE ICD) Trial Investigators.  Combined cardiac resynchronization and implantable cardioversion defibrillation in advanced chronic heart failure: the MIRACLE ICD Trial.  JAMA. 2003;289(20):2685-2694PubMedArticle
10.
Higgins SL, Hummel JD, Niazi IK,  et al.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy for the treatment of heart failure in patients with intraventricular conduction delay and malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(8):1454-1459PubMedArticle
11.
Abraham WT, Young JB, León AR,  et al; Multicenter InSync ICD II Study Group.  Effects of cardiac resynchronization on disease progression in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, an indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and mildly symptomatic chronic heart failure.  Circulation. 2004;110(18):2864-2868PubMedArticle
12.
Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J,  et al; Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2004;350(21):2140-2150PubMedArticle
13.
Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E,  et al; Cardiac Resynchronization-Heart Failure (CARE-HF) Study Investigators.  The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2005;352(15):1539-1549PubMedArticle
14.
Beshai JF, Grimm RA, Nagueh SF,  et al; RethinQ Study Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy in heart failure with narrow QRS complexes.  N Engl J Med. 2007;357(24):2461-2471PubMedArticle
15.
Linde C, Abraham WT, Gold MR, St John Sutton M, Ghio S, Daubert C. REVERSE (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic left vEntricular dysfunction) Study Group.  Randomized trial of cardiac resynchronization in mildly symptomatic heart failure patients and in asymptomatic patients with left ventricular dysfunction and previous heart failure symptoms.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(23):1834-1843PubMedArticle
16.
Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS,  et al; MADIT-CRT Trial Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events.  N Engl J Med. 2009;361(14):1329-1338PubMedArticle
17.
Tang ASL, Wells GA, Talajic M,  et al; Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for mild-to-moderate heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2010;363(25):2385-2395PubMedArticle
×