4.7 Review

Proposed Standardized Neurological Endpoints for Cardiovascular Clinical Trials An Academic Research Consortium Initiative

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 69, Issue 6, Pages 679-691

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.11.045

Keywords

cardiovascular; methodology; neurological definitions; outcomes; stroke trials

Funding

  1. Boston Scientific
  2. Edwards Lifesciences
  3. Medtronic Corporation
  4. St. Jude Medical
  5. NeuroSave Inc.
  6. Keystone Heart Ltd.
  7. Keystone Heart
  8. GlaxoSmithKline
  9. Bayer
  10. Direct Flow Medical
  11. Novartis
  12. Claret Medical
  13. Dutch Heart Foundation [2010T075]
  14. Medtronic
  15. Abbott Vascular
  16. 480 Biomedical
  17. Abbott Vascular Japan
  18. Atrium
  19. Biosensors International
  20. Biotronik
  21. Cordis Johnson Johnson
  22. Kona
  23. Microport Medical
  24. OrbusNeich Medical
  25. ReCore
  26. SINO Medical Technology
  27. Terumo Corporation
  28. W.L. Gore
  29. Abbott
  30. Teva Pharmaceuticals
  31. Biogen Idec
  32. EMD Serono
  33. Genzyme-Sanofi
  34. IMS Health
  35. Intekrin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Surgical and catheter-based cardiovascular procedures and adjunctive pharmacology have an inherent risk of neurological complications. The current diversity of neurological endpoint definitions and ascertainment methods in clinical trials has led to uncertainties in the neurological risk attributable to cardiovascular procedures and inconsistent evaluation of therapies intended to prevent or mitigate neurological injury. Benefit-risk assessment of such procedures should be on the basis of an evaluation of well-defined neurological outcomes that are ascertained with consistent methods and capture the full spectrum of neurovascular injury and its clinical effect. The Neurologic Academic Research Consortium is an international collaboration intended to establish consensus on the definition, classification, and assessment of neurological endpoints applicable to clinical trials of a broad range of cardiovascular interventions. Systematic application of the proposed definitions and assessments will improve our ability to evaluate the risks of cardiovascular procedures and the safety and effectiveness of preventive therapies. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available