Exploring mechanisms of action in clinical trials of complex surgical interventions using mediation analysis

BACKGROUND: Surgical interventions allow for tailoring of treatment to individual patients and implementation may vary with surgeon and healthcare provider. In addition, in clinical trials assessing two competing surgical interventions, the treatments may be accompanied by co-interventions. AIMS: This study explores the use of causal mediation analysis to (1) delineate the treatment effect that results directly from the surgical intervention under study and the indirect effect acting through a co-intervention and (2) to evaluate the benefit of the surgical intervention if either everybody in the trial population received the co-intervention or nobody received it. METHODS: Within a counterfactual framework, relevant direct and indirect effects of a surgical intervention are estimated and adjusted for confounding via parametric regression models, for the situation where both mediator and outcome are binary, with baseline stratification factors included as fixed effects and surgeons as random intercepts. The causal difference in probability of a successful outcome (estimand of interest) is calculated using Monte Carlo simulation with bootstrapping for confidence intervals. Packages for estimation within standard statistical software are reviewed briefly. A step by step application of methods is illustrated using the Amaze randomised trial of ablation as an adjunct to cardiac surgery in patients with irregular heart rhythm, with a co-intervention (removal of the left atrial appendage) administered to a subset of participants at the surgeon’s discretion. The primary outcome was return to normal heart rhythm at one year post surgery. RESULTS: In Amaze, 17% (95% confidence interval: 6%, 28%) more patients in the active arm had a successful outcome, but there was a large difference between active and control arms in the proportion of patients who received the co-intervention (55% and 30%, respectively). Causal mediation analysis suggested that around 1% of the treatment effect was attributable to the co-intervention (16% natural direct effect). The controlled direct effect ranged from 18% (6%, 30%) if the co-intervention were mandated, to 14% (2%, 25%) if it were prohibited. Including age as a moderator of the mediation effects showed that the natural direct effect of ablation appeared to decrease with age. CONCLUSIONS: Causal mediation analysis is a useful quantitative tool to explore mediating effects of co-interventions in surgical trials. In Amaze, investigators could be reassured that the effect of the active treatment, not explainable by differential use of the co-intervention, was significant across analyses.