Pros and Cons of Composite Endpoints in Anesthesia Trials

Abstract

IT is widely accepted that the randomized controlled trial is the optimal method to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention.1 Clinical research aiming to inform and improve patient care should evaluate outcomes rated as important by our patients.2–4 Unfortunately, many trials focus on surrogate outcomes that are of questionable significance.5 Given that 5 to 10% of trial patients will suffer a serious postoperative complication, and that perioperative treatments are likely to have only a moderate effect on outcome, large numbers of patients are required to have sufficient trial power to detect a modest but clinically important effect.1,2