A heart with a clock inside, symbolizing time's impact on cardiovascular health.

Decoding Composite Endpoints: Why Study Length Matters for Heart Health

Author's portrait.
Lena Voss in Health & Wellness December 2025 • 5 min read.

"Understand how longer study durations can change the interpretation of composite endpoints in cardiovascular research, influencing risk assessment and treatment strategies."


In clinical trials and observational studies, composite endpoints (CEPs) are frequently used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. Despite their widespread use, there are ongoing debates regarding their methodological and interpretational aspects. It is generally advised to construct CEPs from component outcomes that share similar pathophysiologic processes, patient importance, frequency, and associations with the predictor or intervention.

In the field of cardiovascular research, where CEPs are used in more than one-third of trials, studies have demonstrated that the effect estimates based on CEPs are largely influenced by more frequent but less severe component outcomes. Conversely, fatal component outcomes, which occur less frequently, often exhibit the weakest treatment effects. Despite this, the potential complicating role of study duration and follow-up time has received limited attention.

For instance, it has been suggested that long-term studies on valve implantation should account for time-related component outcomes like valve failure. More broadly, the contribution of fatal component outcomes may increase with longer follow-up, particularly in chronic disease studies involving older adults. The relative composition of the CEP can change as study duration increases, leading to study duration-dependent changes in the association of a risk factor with the CEP. This change may not be due to time-varying effects of the risk factor on the component outcomes, but rather due to a time-varying composition of the CEP. Recognizing the significance of study duration-dependent CEP compositions, this article aims to empirically address this issue in a cardiovascular patient cohort followed for 13 years.

How Study Duration Impacts Composite Endpoint Composition

A heart with a clock inside, symbolizing time's impact on cardiovascular health.

The Long-term Success of Cardiological Rehabilitation Therapy (KAROLA) prospective cohort study followed patients with chronic coronary heart disease for 13 years. The study, conducted from January 1999 to May 2000, included 1204 patients aged 30 to 70 years who were admitted to rehabilitation clinics within three months after an acute cardiovascular event, such as acute coronary syndrome or coronary artery bypass surgery. Participation was voluntary and required written informed consent, adhering to the declaration of Helsinki and approved by relevant ethics boards.

Baseline data collection involved self-administered standardized questionnaires on medical, sociodemographic, and health behavior variables, along with pertinent data extracted from hospital records. Blood samples were analyzed for free fatty acids (FFA) and mid-regional proatrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP). Participants were actively followed for 1, 3, 4.5, 6, 8, 10, and 13 years via standardized mailed questionnaires. Secondary cardiovascular events, such as nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, were ascertained by contacting primary care physicians and using standardized questionnaires. Vital status follow-up was conducted through public health authorities, and circulatory deaths were identified from death certificates.

  • Initial High Proportion of Nonfatal Events: Initially, nonfatal events made up a large proportion of the composite endpoint (70%).
  • Monotonic Decrease Over Time: As the follow-up duration increased, the proportion of nonfatal events monotonically decreased.
  • Even Distribution at Study End: Towards the end of the 13-year study, the distribution of fatal and nonfatal events contributing to the CEP became almost even.
The association of baseline cardiovascular risk markers (cineangiographic or echocardiographically defined heart failure, FFA levels, and MR-proANP levels) with the occurrence of a secondary circulatory event (CEP, nonfatal or fatal component outcomes) was analyzed using Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for key covariates such as age, sex, renal function, number of affected vessels, and smoking status. This adjustment aimed to reduce confounding and provide a clear view of marker-outcome relationships.

Key Takeaways: Navigating Composite Endpoints in Research

The findings underscore the critical role of follow-up time in CEP analysis, which has often been overlooked. The association of a risk factor or marker with a CEP is a complex function of the associations of the variable with the component outcomes forming the CEP. The study emphasizes that researchers should consider exploring the evolution of CEP composition and component associations during increasing study duration. This approach can help clarify how these factors collectively influence the observed association of a risk factor with the CEP at the end of a study, enhancing the reliability and applicability of cardiovascular research findings.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

1

What exactly are composite endpoints, and why are they used in cardiovascular research?

Composite endpoints, or CEPs, combine multiple outcomes into a single measure to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments or interventions. For instance, in heart studies, a CEP might include events like heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death. CEPs are used to increase the number of events, making it easier to detect statistically significant effects, especially when individual outcomes are rare.

2

Why is the length of a study so important when using composite endpoints?

Study duration is critical because the composition of a composite endpoint can change over time. Initially, less severe events might dominate the CEP, but as the study continues, more severe events like cardiovascular deaths may become more prevalent. This shift can alter the interpretation of results, potentially affecting how we understand the relationship between risk factors and cardiovascular outcomes.

3

Can you explain how the composition of a composite endpoint changes over time, perhaps using an example?

The Long-term Success of Cardiological Rehabilitation Therapy (KAROLA) study revealed that nonfatal events initially made up a large proportion of the composite endpoint, but their proportion decreased over the 13-year study. By the end, fatal and nonfatal events were almost evenly distributed. This demonstrates that the impact of different components within a CEP can vary significantly depending on the length of the study.

4

What steps should researchers take to account for changes in composite endpoint composition during a study?

Researchers should analyze how the composition of composite endpoints evolves over time and how each component outcome relates to the overall endpoint. This involves tracking the occurrence of each component event and understanding how their relative contributions change. Methods like Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for covariates, can help clarify these relationships.

5

What are cardiovascular risk markers, and how do they relate to composite endpoints in studies?

Cardiovascular risk markers, such as cineangiographic or echocardiographically defined heart failure, free fatty acid (FFA) levels, and mid-regional proatrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP) levels, are indicators that help predict the likelihood of cardiovascular events. The KAROLA study examined how these markers relate to the composite endpoint of secondary circulatory events, finding that their association can change as the study duration increases, affecting the observed risk.

Newsletter Subscribe

Subscribe to get the latest articles and insights directly in your inbox.