Randomized controlled trials: still the backbone of vascular surgery?

Abstract

Abstract Prior to the introduction of evidence-based medicine, decision-making was largely based upon ‘intuitive reasoning’, whereby senior clinicians dictated practice based upon personal dogma, personal experience and (often) biased observational studies. This era began to end (in vascular surgery) following completion of the landmark randomized trials in carotid disease, which recruited patients throughout the 1980s. Despite scepticism amongst some surgeons of the time these particular randomized trials have stood the test of time and remain the cornerstone of virtually every guideline of practice to this day. The carotid randomized trials became a beacon for using ‘evidence’ rather than ‘intuitive reasoning’ and randomized trials have now been used to determine optimal practice in a plethora of carotid surgery and stenting trials, lower limb revascularization and numerous aortic aneurysm based studies. The literature abounds with situations where practice (previously based on observational study data) was changed overnight following publication of a well-designed randomized trial. However, while observational studies are prone to selection bias, randomized trials bring their own unique limitations including problems with external validity, they take too long to complete, they are very expensive, they are notorious for problems with recruitment and they can frequently become obsolete. This has led to a (not unreasonable) call for more observational studies to be used in the development of practice guidelines. Unfortunately, the principle guideline bodies around the world, e.g. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the American Heart Association (AHA), prioritize randomized trial evidence above all else. Until that changes, guideline makers will find it very difficult to deviate from using historical randomized trial evidence, even when high quality observational data suggest that ‘real world’ practice bears little comparison to that reported in the randomized trials. Nowhere is that more evident than in developing contemporary guidelines for the management of asymptomatic carotid disease.