Exploration of a Bayesian Updating Methodology to Monitor the Safety of Interventional Cardiovascular Procedures

Abstract

Appropriate methods for monitoring of the safety of medical devices introduced into clinical practice have been elusive to develop and implement. A novel approach is the application of Bayesian updating, which incorporates existing knowledge regarding event rates into the estimation of risk. This framework has been shown in other domains to be data efficient and to address some of the limitations of conventional statistical methods. In this article, the authors propose a methodologic framework for developing initial prior probability distributions in risk-stratified patient groups and a mechanism for incorporating accumulating procedure safety experience. In addition, they use this methodology to retrospectively analyze the clinical outcomes of 309 patients undergoing an infrequent interventional cardiology procedure, rotational atherectomy. These exploratory analyses demonstrate the feasibility of Bayesian updating applied to medical device safety evaluation and indicate that the methodology is capable of generating stable estimates of risk in a variety of patient risk groups.

Keywords

Bayesian statistics procedural safety coronary angioplasty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Siu N , Apostolakis G. Modeling the detection rates of fires in nuclear plants: development and application of a methodology for treating imprecise evidence.Risk Anal. 1986;6(1):43–59.

2. Austin PC . A comparison of Bayesian methods for profiling hospital performance. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(2):163–172.

3. Weinstein M , Horev AD , Nussbaum SA , Schimpf S . Cardiovascular Device Handbook: An Investors’ Guide to Interventional Cardiology. Industry Update. New York: J. P. Morgan Chase; 2002.

4. McGrath PD , Malenka DJ , Wennberg DE , et al. Changing outcomes in percutaneous coronary interventions: a study of 34,752 procedures in northern New England, 1990 to 1997. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34(3):674–680.

5. Holmes DR , Berger PB , Garratt KN , et al. Application of the New York State PTCA mortality model in patients undergoing stent implantation. Circulation. 2000;102:517–522.

6. O’Connor GT , Malenka DJ , Quinton HQ , et al. Multivariate prediction of in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions in 1994-1996. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34(3):681–691.

7. Moscucci M , O’Connor GT , Ellis SG , et al. Validation of risk adjustment models for in-hospital percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty mortality on an independent data set. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34(3):692–697.

8. Budde T , Haude M , Hopp W , et al. Aprognostic computer model to predict individual outcome in interventional cardiology. The INTERVENT Project. Eur Heart J. 1997;18:1611–1619.

9. Bergelson BA , Jacobs AK , Cupples LA , et al. Prediction of risk for hemodynamic compromise during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 1992;70:1540–1545.

10.

10. Hannan EL , Racz M , Ryan TJ , et al. Coronary angioplasty volumeoutcome relationships for hospitals and cardiologists. JAMA. 1997;277(11):892–898.

11.

11. Resnic FS , Ohno-Machado L , Selwyn AP , Simon DI , Popma JJ . Simplified risk score models accurately predict the risk of major inhospital complications following percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2001;88(1):5–9.

12.

12. Moscucci M , Kline-Rogers E , Share D , et al. Simple bedside additive tool for prediction of in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions. Circulation. 2001;104:263–268.

13.

13. Food and Drug Administration. FDA product warning notification. NIR on Ranger w/SOX premounted stent system. Rockville (MD): Office of Surveillance and Biometrics, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration; 8October 1998.

14.

14. Spiegelhalter DJ , Myles JP , Jones DR , Abrams KR . Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: a review. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(38):1–130.

15.

15. Siu NO , Kelly DL . Bayesian parameter estimation in probabilistic risk assessment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 199;62:89–116.

16.

16. Winkler RL . Introduction to Bayesian Inference and Decision. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1972.

17.

17. Safian RD , Feldman T , Muller DW , et al. Coronary angioplasty and rotablator atherectomy trial (CARAT): immediate and late results of a prospective multi-center randomized trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2001;53(2):213–220.

18.

18. Vom Dahl J , Dietz U , Haager PK , et al. Rotational atherectomy does not reduce recurrent in-stent restenosis: results of the angioplasty versus rotational atherectomy for treatment of diffuse instent restenosis trial (ARTIST). Circulation. 2002;105(5):583–588.

19.

19. Whitlow PL , Bass TA , Kipperman RM , et al. Results of the study to determine rotablator and transluminal angioplasty strategy (STRATAS). Am J Cardiol. 2001;87(6)699–705.

20.

20. Reisman M , Buchbinder M , Sharma SK . A multicenter randomized trial of rotational atherectomy vs. PTCA: DART. Circulation. 1997;96:I467A-I467A.

21.

21. Reifart N , Vandormael M , Krajcar M , et al. Randomized comparison of angioplasty of complex coronary lesions at a single center. Excimer Laser, Rotational Atherectomy, and Balloon Angioplasty Comparison (ERBAC) Study. Circulation. 1997;96(1):91–98.

22.

22. Ang AHS , Tang WH . Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design: Volume I. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1975.

23.

23. Normand ST , Zou KH . Sample size considerations in observational health care quality studies. Stat Med. 2002;21:331–345.

24.

24. O’Malley AJ , Normand ST , Kuntz RE . Sample size calculation for a historically controlled clinical trial with adjustment for covariates. J Biopharm Stat. 2002;12(2):227–247.