Gynaecologic surgery from uncertainty to science: evolution of randomized control trials. Prospective trial of supranormal values of survivors as therapeutic goals in high-risk surgical patients. Surgeon and hospital characteristics as predictors of major adverse outcomes following colon cancer surgery: understanding the volume-outcome relationship. Reducing the risk of major elective surgery: randomised controlled trial of preoperative optimisation of oxygen delivery. Evidence-based postoperative pain management in nursing: is a randomized-controlled trial the most appropriate design? A prospective randomized trial of preoperative "optimization" of cardiac function in patients undergoing elective peripheral vascular surgery. A prospective randomized controlled trial of multimodal perioperative management protocol in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection for cancer. Perioperative morbidity in patients randomized to epidural or general anesthesia for lower extremity vascular surgery. Perioperative Ischemia Randomized Anesthesia Trial Study Group. Decompressive Surgery for the Treatment of Malignant Infarction of the Middle Cerebral Artery (DESTINY): a randomized, controlled trial.
It is now accepted that both medical and surgical practice should be based on reliable and sound clinical evidence. However, randomized control trials comparing surgical interventions have been associated with many problems. The aim of this review is to assess if there has been progress made in establishing the evidence base for surgical interventions in gynaecology.
                Relevant reviews were identified from Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue , 2006) and data from individual randomized control trials extracted. Chi-squared test was used to compare quality pre- and post-Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. Meta-regression analyses were performed to test the hypothesis that effect size decreased over time. Further multiple linear regression analyses were used to test the hypothesis that precision increased over time and finally a logistic regression model was used to estimate whether treatment effects differed between trials with and without allocation concealment.
                Twenty-three relevant reviews were identified, including 94 trials. The proportion of studies reporting allocation concealment significantly increased after the introduction of the CONSORT statement (P = 0.002). There was a trend towards improvement in precision over time. Similarly, there was a reduction in size of treatment effect over time (log of the ratio of odds ratios per year 0.96; 95% confidence interval 0.93-0.99, P = 0.04).
                Gynaecologic surgical practice appears to be benefiting from improvement in its research base in a subject where practitioners do not participate readily in randomized evaluation. Survivors of high-risk surgical operations were previously observed to have significantly higher mean CI, DO2, and VO2 than nonsurvivors. The hypothesis was proposed that increased CI and DO2 are circulatory compensations for increased postoperative metabolism. We tested this hypothesis in two series. In series 1, prospectively allocated by services, mortality and morbidity of the control group were significantly greater than those of the protocol group. In series 2, patients who fulfilled previously defined high-risk criteria were preoperatively randomized to one of three monitoring/treatment groups: CVP-control group, PA-control group and PA-protocol group. Postoperative mortalities in the CVP-control and PA-control groups were not statistically significantly different, but PA-protocol group mortality was significantly reduced compared with its control group. The PA-protocol group had reduced complications, duration of hospitalization, duration in ICU, and mechanical ventilation, and reduced costs when the PA catheter was placed preoperatively and used to augment circulatory responses. Although numerous studies have demonstrated an association between surgical volume and improved outcome in cancer surgery, the specific structures and mechanisms of care that are associated with volume and lead to improved outcomes remain poorly defined. We hypothesize that there are modifiable surgeon and hospital characteristics that explain observed volume-outcome relationships.
                Retrospective cohort study.
                Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry areas.
                Patients aged 66 years and older, diagnosed and surgically treated for stage I, II, or III colon cancer between 1992 and 1996 (n = 22 672).
                Thirty-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative procedural interventions, including reoperation and image-guided percutaneous procedures.
                Surgeon volume, but not hospital volume, is a significant predictor of postoperative procedural intervention (adjusted odds ratio for very high-volume surgeons vs low-volume surgeons, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.98). In the unadjusted analyses, high hospital volume (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.81) and very high hospital volume (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.79) is associated with lower postoperative mortality. Postoperative procedural intervention is not a significant mediator of the relationship between hospital volume and mortality. A single variable-the presence of sophisticated clinical services-was the most important explanatory variable underlying the relationship between hospital volume and mortality.
                Very high surgeon volume is associated with a reduction in surgical complications. However, the association between increasing hospital volume and postoperative mortality appears to derive mainly from a full spectrum of clinical services that may facilitate the prompt recognition and treatment of complications. To determine whether preoperative optimisation of oxygen delivery improves outcome after major elective surgery, and to determine whether the inotropes, adrenaline and dopexamine, used to enhance oxygen delivery influence outcome.
                Randomised controlled trial with double blinding between inotrope groups. Setting: York District Hospital, England.
                138 patients undergoing major elective surgery who were at risk of developing postoperative complications either because of the surgery or the presence of coexistent medical conditions. Interventions: Patients were randomised into three groups. Two groups received invasive haemodynamic monitoring, fluid, and either adrenaline or dopexamine to increase oxygen delivery. Inotropic support was continued during surgery and for at least 12 hours afterwards. The third group (control) received routine perioperative care.
                Hospital mortality and morbidity.
                Overall, 3/92 (3%) preoptimised patients died compared with 8/46 controls (17%) (P=0.007). There were no differences in mortality between the treatment groups, but 14/46 (30%) patients in the dopexamine group developed complications compared with 24/46 (52%) patients in the adrenaline group (difference 22%, 95% confidence interval 2% to 41%) and 28 patients (61%) in the control group (31%, 11% to 50%). The use of dopexamine was associated with a decreased length of stay in hospital.
                Routine preoperative optimisation of patients undergoing major elective surgery would be a significant and cost effective improvement in perioperative care. There is an increasing drive to make nursing care evidence-based. High quality evidence from systematic reviews relevant to postoperative pain relief exists, yet pain after surgery remains poorly controlled for many patients. This study aimed to assess whether implementing evidence-based pain management improved postoperative pain outcomes. Pain on a 0-10 scale was the primary outcome and analgesic consumption a secondary outcome. A baseline audit was undertaken on four surgical wards to establish whether there was a need for the study. A randomized-controlled trial was then designed to assess the effects of implementing an evidence-based approach to postoperative pain management. The four wards were randomized to receive the intervention or act as a control. Outcomes were assessed 3 months after the intervention on both intervention and control wards. The intervention (implementation of an oral analgesic algorithm derived from systematic reviews) was then implemented on the control wards and outcomes reassessed after 3 months on the control wards. The intervention was designed using an evidence-based approach to effective implementation. Four interactive sessions covered: (1) detailed feedback of baseline data and discussion (utilizing audit and feedback), (2) why systematic reviews, analgesic league tables and choice of drugs to develop an analgesic algorithm (see Figure 1), (3) principles of evidence based health care (EBHC), including critical appraisal and (4) facilitation and change workshop. The findings revealed no significant differences in pain level or drug use between the intervention and control wards. However, the control wards also changed during the control period. Possible explanations for this are discussed. When looking at changes compared with baseline, both intervention and control wards increased their use of algorithm drugs and reduced use of non-algorithm drugs during the study. No effects were found on pain in the intervention wards. Pain ratings at rest since surgery, on movement since surgery and worst pain on movement were significantly reduced compared with baseline in the control wards. Although there are many pressures to utilize a randomized-controlled trial study design in the culture of evidence-based health care, there will be times, especially when implementing complex changes in practice that other types of design should be considered. Previous investigations have suggested that preoperative invasive hemodynamic monitoring with "optimization" of cardiovascular function may favorably affect the outcome among patients undergoing peripheral vascular surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of preoperative optimization of hemodynamic parameters on outcome in patients undergoing aortic reconstruction (AR) or limb salvage procedures (LSP) in a randomized, prospective clinical trial.
                All 72 patients who consented to participate in this study were admitted to the intensive care unit at least 12 hours before operation for placement of a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). Patients who were randomized to the treatment group (n = 32) were "optimized" by adjusting their hemoglobin concentration, oxygen saturation (SaO2), cardiac output, or afterload until the mixed venous O2 saturation (SvO2) was at least 65%. The control group (n = 40) underwent placement of a PAC and had oxygen transport parameters measured without any attempt to optimize SvO2.
                There were no significant differences between the treatment and control groups with respect to age, gender, type of operation, initial Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, SvO2, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, or cardiac index. All treatment patients achieved an SvO2 of at least 65% before operation. Comparing the treatment and control groups, postoperative cardiovascular complications occurred in 25% versus 27%, intraoperative complications in 28% versus 20%, and death in 9% versus 5%, respectively. None of these differences was statistically significant as a whole or within the subgroups undergoing AR or LSP.
                These data suggest that preoperative optimization of cardiovascular function by using achievement of SvO2 above 65% as the end point does not result in any reduction of intraoperative or perioperative cardiac complications in patients undergoing PVS. Further studies with alternative assessments and manipulation of different cardiopulmonary parameters may yield additional information. A prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) of multimodal perioperative management protocol in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection for cancer.
                This study evaluates the use of a multimodal package in colorectal cancer surgery in the context of an RCT.
                Patients for elective resection for colorectal cancer were offered trial entry. Participants were stratified by sex and requirement for a total mesorectal excision and centrally randomized. Multimodal patients received intravenous fluid restriction, unrestricted oral intake with prokinetic agents, early ambulation, and fixed regimen epidural analgesia. Control patients received intravenous fluids to prevent oliguria, restricted oral intake until return of bowel motility, and weaning regimen epidural analgesia. Adherence to both regimens was reinforced using a daily checklist and protocol guidance sheets. Discharge decision was made using pre-agreed criteria. The primary endpoint was postoperative stay, and achievement of independence milestones. Secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, readmission rates, and mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                Seventy patients were recruited. Approximately one fourth underwent TME. Median ages were similar (69.3 vs. 73.0 years). The median stay was significantly reduced in the multimodal group (5 vs. 7 days; P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). Patients in the control arm were 2.5 times as likely to require a postoperative stay of more than 5 days. Patients in the multimodal group had less cardiorespiratory and anastomotic complications but more readmissions. There were 2 deaths, both controls.
                This RCT provides level 1b evidence that a multimodal management protocol can significantly reduce postoperative stay following colorectal cancer surgery. Morbidity and mortality are not increased. Perioperative morbidity may be modifiable in high risk patients by the anesthesiologist's choice of either regional or general anesthesia. This clinical trial compared outcomes between epidural (EA) and general (GA) anesthesia/analgesia regimens in a group of patients at high risk for cardiac and other morbidity who were undergoing similarly stressful surgical procedures.
                One hundred patients scheduled for elective vascular reconstruction of the lower extremities were randomized to receive either EA for surgery followed by epidural analgesia, or GA for surgery followed by intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Hemodynamic monitoring, blood pressure, and heart rate limits were determined prior to randomization. Management of anesthesia in the immediate postoperative period was standardized. The data collected included continuous electrocardiographic monitoring from the day before surgery through the third postoperative day, serial electrocardiograms, and cardiac enzymes. Cardiac ischemia, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and cardiac death were identified by a cardiologist blinded to the type of anesthesia received. Other major morbidity was determined at the time of hospital discharge and at 1 and 6 months after surgery.
                Eleven patients who received GA required regrafting or an embolectomy during their hospital stay, compared with two patients who received EA. This association of GA with reoperation remained significant after adjustment for baseline differences. Cardiac outcomes were similar in the two groups with respect to perioperative death (1 EA and 1 GA), death within 6 months (4 EA and 3 GA), nonfatal myocardial infarction within 7 days (2 EA and 2 GA), unstable angina (0 EA and 2 GA), and myocardial ischemia following randomization (17 EA and 23 GA). Rates of major infections in the two groups (1 EA and 2 GA), renal failure (3 EA and 3 GA), and pulmonary complications (3 EA and 7 GA) also were similar.
                Carefully conducted epidural and general anesthesia appear to be associated with comparable rates of cardiac and most other morbidity in patients undergoing lower extremity vascular surgery. However, compared with general anesthesia, epidural anesthesia is associated with a lower incidence of reoperation for inadequate tissue perfusion and, therefore, may be advantageous for this surgical population. Decompressive surgery (hemicraniectomy) for life-threatening massive cerebral infarction represents a controversial issue in neurocritical care medicine. We report here the 30-day mortality and 6- and 12-month functional outcomes from the DESTINY trial.
                DESTINY (ISRCTN01258591) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, clinical trial based on a sequential design that used mortality after 30 days as the first end point. When this end point was reached, patient enrollment was interrupted as per protocol until recalculation of the projected sample size was performed on the basis of the 6-month outcome (primary end point=modified Rankin Scale score, dichotomized to 0 to 3 versus 4 to 6). All analyses were based on intention to treat.
                A statistically significant reduction in mortality was reached after 32 patients had been included: 15 of 17 (88%) patients randomized to hemicraniectomy versus 7 of 15 (47%) patients randomized to conservative therapy survived after 30 days (P=0.02). After 6 and 12 months, 47% of patients in the surgical arm versus 27% of patients in the conservative treatment arm had a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 3 (P=0.23).
                DESTINY showed that hemicraniectomy reduces mortality in large hemispheric stroke. With 32 patients included, the primary end point failed to demonstrate statistical superiority of hemicraniectomy, and the projected sample size was calculated to 188 patients. Despite this failure to meet the primary end point, the steering committee decided to terminate the trial in light of the results of the joint analysis of the 3 European hemicraniectomy trials.
There is no evidence of relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the two operations. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future research must be undertaken to perform high-quality randomised controlled trials of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well-defined outcome parameters.