Author:
Ridgeon Elliott,Shadwell Rory,Wilkinson Alice,Odor Peter M.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Demographics of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery are changing. External validity of relevant RCTs may be limited by participants not resembling patients encountered in clinical practice. We aimed to characterise differences in age, weight, BMI, and ASA grade between participants in perioperative trials in major abdominal surgery and patients in a reference real-world clinical practice sample. The secondary aim was to investigate whether time since trial publication was associated with increasing mismatch between these groups.
Methods
MEDLINE and Embase were searched for multicentre RCTs from inception to September 2022. Studies of perioperative interventions in adults were included. Studies that limited enrolment based on age, weight, BMI, or ASA status were excluded. We compared trial cohort age, weight, BMI, and ASA distribution to those of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery at our tertiary referral hospital during September 2021 to September 2022. We used a local, single-institution reference sample to reflect the reality of clinical practice (i.e. patients treated by a clinician in their own hospital, rather than averaged nationally). Mismatch was defined using comparison of summary characteristics and ad hoc criteria based on differences relevant to predicted mortality risk after surgery.
Results
One-hundred and six trials (44,499 participants) were compared to a reference cohort of 2792 clinical practice patients. Trials were published a median (IQR [range]) 13.4 (5–20 [0–35]) years ago. A total of 94.3% of trials were mismatched on at least one characteristic (age, weight, BMI, ASA). Recruitment of ASA 3 + participants in trials increased over time, and recruitment of ASA 1 participants decreased over time (Spearman’s Rho 0.58 and − 0.44, respectively).
Conclusions
Patients encountered in our current local clinical practice are significantly different from those in our defined set of perioperative RCTs. Older trials recruit more low-risk than high-risk participants—trials may thus ‘expire’ over time. These trials may not be generalisable to current patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, and meta-analyses or guidelines incorporating these trials may therefore be similarly non-applicable. Comparison to local, rather than national cohorts, is important for meaningful on-the-ground evidence-based decision-making.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference136 articles.
1. Alleway R, Butt A, Ellis D, Freeth H, Kelly K, Jarman D, et al. Knowing the risk a review of the peri-operative care of surgical patients A report by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (2011).
2. Andaker L, Burman LG, Eklund A, Graffner H, Hansson J, Hellberg R, et al. Fosfomycin/metronidazole compared with doxycycline/metronidazole for the prophylaxis of infection after elective colorectal surgery. A randomised double-blind multicentre trial in 517 patients. Eur J Surg. 1992;158(3):181–5.
3. Aoyama T, Yoshikawa T, Ida S, Cho H, Sakamaki K, Ito Y, et al. Effects of perioperative eicosapentaenoic acid-enriched oral nutritional supplement on the long-term oncological outcomes after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Oncol Lett. 2022;23(5):1–6.
4. Aqua K, Gimbel JS, Singla N, Ma T, Ahdieh H, Kerwin R. Efficacy and tolerability of oxymorphone immediate release for acute postoperative pain after abdominal surgery: a randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Clin Ther. 2007;29(6):1000–12.
5. Arnaud JP, Bellissant E, Boissel P, Carlet J, Chastang C, Lafaix C, et al. Single-dose amoxycillin-clavulanic acid vs. cefotetan for prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre, prospective, randomized study. The PRODIGE Group. J Hosp Infect. 1992;22:23–32.