A Bayesian re-analysis of the STRESS trial

Authors

Kevin D. Hill, Duke University Pediatric and Congenital Heart Center, Durham, North Carolina; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: kevin.hill@duke.edu.
Jake Koerner, Duke University Pediatric and Congenital Heart Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Hwanhee Hong, Duke University Pediatric and Congenital Heart Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Jennifer S. Li, Duke University Pediatric and Congenital Heart Center, Durham, North Carolina; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Christoph Hornik, Duke University Pediatric and Congenital Heart Center, Durham, North Carolina; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Prince J. Kannankeril, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Jeffrey P. Jacobs, University of Florida Congenital Heart Center, Gainesville, Florida.
H Scott Baldwin, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Marshall L. Jacobs, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Eric M. Graham, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Brian Blasiole, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
David F. Vener, Pediatric Cardiac Anesthesiology, Texas Children's Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Adil S. Husain, University of Utah/Primary Children's Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah.
S Ram Kumar, Criss Heart Center, Children's Nebraska and University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
Alexis Benscoter, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Eric Wald, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Tara Karamlou, Akron Children's and Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Akron, Ohio.
Andrew H. Van Bergen, Advocate Health - MidwestFollow
David Overman, Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Children's Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Pirooz Eghtesady, Section of Pediatric Cardiothoracic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Ryan Butts, Division of Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas.
John S. Kim, Division of Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Heart Institute, Children's Hospital Colorado, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
John P. Scott, Children's Wisconsin, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Brett R. Anderson, Mount Sinai Children's Heart Center, New York, New York.
Michael F. Swartz, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.
Sean M. O'Brien, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.

Affiliations

Advocate Children's Hospital Oak Lawn

Abstract

Background: Prophylactic steroids are often used to reduce the systemic inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass in infants undergoing heart surgery. The STRESS trial found that the odds of a worse outcome did not differ between infants randomized to methylprednisolone (n=599) versus placebo (n=601) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.86; P=0.14). However, secondary analyses showed possible benefits with methylprednisolone. To investigate further using a different probabilistic approach, we re-analyzed the STRESS trial using Bayesian analytics.

Methods: We used a covariate-adjusted proportional odds model using the original STRESS trial primary endpoint, a ranked composite of death, transplant, major complication and post-op length of stay. We performed Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulations to assess the probability of benefit (OR <1) versus harm (OR >1). Primary analysis assumed a neutral probability of benefit versus harm with weak prior belief strength (nearly non-informative prior distribution). To illustrate magnitude of effect, we calculated predicted risk of death, transplant or major complications for methylprednisolone and placebo. Sensitivity analyses evaluated pessimistic (5%-30% prior likelihood of benefit), neutral and optimistic (70%-95%) prior beliefs, and controlled strength of prior belief as weak (30% variance), moderate (15%) and strong (5%). A secondary analysis derived empirical priors using data from four previous steroid trials.

Results: The posterior probability of any benefit from methylprednisolone was 92% and probability of harm was 8%. Composite death or major complication occurred in 18.8% of subjects with an absolute risk difference of -2% (95% CI -3%, +1%) for methylprednisolone. Each of 9 sensitivity analyses demonstrated greater probability of benefit than harm in the methylprednisolone group with 8 of 9 demonstrating >80% probability of benefit and ≥1% absolute difference in risk of death, transplant or major complications. In secondary analysis deriving priors from previous steroid trials, results were consistent with a 95% posterior probability of benefit.

Conclusion: Our Bayesian re-analysis of the STRESS trial, using a range of prior beliefs, demonstrated a high probability that perioperative methylprednisolone reduces the risk of death or major complications in infants undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass compared with placebo. This more in-depth analysis expands the initial clinical evaluation of methylprednisolone provided by the STRESS trial.

Type

Article

PubMed ID

41015071


 

Share

COinS