Cited by 348Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsAcute Myocardial Infarction Research

The Problem With Composite End Points in Cardiovascular Studies

Open access
Kip, Kevin E., Hollabaugh, Kim, Marroquin, Oscar C., Williams, David O.·2008·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Objectives Our purpose was to evaluate the heterogeneity and validity of composite end points, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in particular, in cardiology research.Background The term MACE is a commonly used end point for cardiovascular research. By definition, MACE is a composite of clinical events and usually includes end points reflecting safety and effectiveness. There is no standard definition for MACE, as individual outcomes used to make this composite end point vary by study. This inconsistency calls into question whether use of MACE in cardiology research is of value.Methods We conducted a 2-phase literature review on the use of MACE as a composite end point: 1) studies that have compared use of bare-metal versus drug-eluting stents; and 2) studies published in the Journal in calendar year 2006. We subsequently tested 3 different definitions of MACE during 1-year of follow-up among 6,922 patients in the DEScover registry who received at least 1 drug-eluting stent.Results The review identified substantial heterogeneity in the study-specific individual outcomes used to define MACE. Markedly different results were observed for selected patient subsets of acute myocardial infarction (MI) (vs. no MI) and multilesion stenting (vs. single-lesion stenting) according to the various definitions of MACE.Conclusions Varying definitions of composite end points, such as MACE, can lead to substantially different results and conclusions. Therefore, the term MACE, in particular, should not be used, and when composite study end points are desired, researchers should focus separately on safety and effectiveness outcomes, and construct separate composite end points to match these different clinical goals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.10.034

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kip, K. E., Hollabaugh, K., Marroquin, O. C., & Williams, D. O.
Affiliations
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Rhode Island Hospital (US)
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-02
Volume
51
Issue
7
Pages
701-707
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1673665560
Cited by
348
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
1.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
Keywords
major adverse cardiac events, composite endpoints, drug-eluting stents, bare-metal stents, acute myocardial infarction
MeSH terms
Coronary Disease, Humans, Myocardial Infarction, Terminology as Topic, Prognosis, Stents, Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary, Proportional Hazards Models, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Endpoint Determination, Drug-Eluting Stents

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review