Treatment Crossovers Did Not Affect Randomized Treatment Comparisons in the Mode Selection Trial (MOST)
Anne S. Hellkamp, MS*,*,
Kerry L. Lee, PhD*,
Michael O. Sweeney, MD, FACC ,
Mark S. Link, MD, FACC ,
Gervasio A. Lamas, MD, FACC for the MOST Investigators
* Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina
Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, Florida
View larger version (28K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 Number of patients in each pacing mode by month after implant. VVIR = ventricular pacing; DDDR = dual-chamber pacing.
|
|
View larger version (19K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 Relative risk for each event for intent-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment (OT) analyses. HR (CI) = hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for dual-chamber pacing (DDDR) versus ventricular pacing (VVIR).
|
|
View larger version (16K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3 Event-free rates for the primary end point (all-cause mortality or nonfatal stroke) by pacing mode for (A) intent-to-treat and (B) on-treatment analyses. VVIR = ventricular pacing; DDDR = dual-chamber pacing.
|
|
View larger version (13K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4 Event-free rates for first HFH by pacing mode for (A) intent-to-treat and (B) on-treatment analyses. VVIR = ventricular pacing; DDDR = dual-chamber pacing.
|
|
View larger version (15K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5 Event-free rates for AF by pacing mode for (A) intent-to-treat and (B) on-treatment analyses. VVIR = ventricular pacing; DDDR = dual-chamber pacing.
|
|
|
