Can decision making in general surgery be based on evidence? An empirical study of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND: This empirical study analyzes the current status of Cochrane Reviews (CRs) and their strength of recommendation for evidence-based decision making in the field of general surgery. METHODS: Systematic literature search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration's homepage to identify available CRs on surgical topics. Quantitative and qualitative characteristics, utilization, and formulated treatment recommendations were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers. Association of review characteristics with treatment recommendation was analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Ninety-three CRs, including 1,403 primary studies and 246,473 patients, were identified. Mean number of included primary studies per CR was 15.1 (standard deviation [SD] 14.5) including 2,650 (SD 3,340) study patients. Two and a half (SD 8.3) nonrandomized trials were included per analyzed CR. Seventy-two (77%) CRs were published or updated in 2005 or later. Explicit treatment recommendations were given in 45 (48%). Presence of a treatment recommendation was associated with the number of included primary studies and the proportion of randomized studies. Utilization of surgical CRs remained low and showed large inter-country differences. The most surgical CRs were accessed in UK, USA, and Australia, followed by several Western and Eastern European countries. CONCLUSION: Only a minority of available CRs address surgical questions and their current usage is low. Instead of unsystematically increasing the number of surgical CRs it would be far more efficient to focus the review process on relevant surgical questions. Prioritization of CRs needs valid methods which should be developed by the scientific surgical community.

[Role of coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of coronary artery disease - a well-balanced information of the patients and objective decision making are welcome]

Most recently discussion about the optimal treatment for different subsets of patients suffering from coronary artery disease has re-emerged, mainly because of the uncertainty caused by doctors and patients regarding the phenomenon of unpredictable early and late stent thrombosis. Surgical revascularization using multiple arterial bypass grafts has repeatedly proven its superiority compared to percutaneous intervention techniques, especially in patients suffering from left main stem disease and coronary 3-vessels disease. Several prospective randomized multicenter studies comparing early and mid-term results following PCI and CABG have been really restrictive, with respect to patient enrollment, with less than 5% of all patients treated during the same time period been enrolled. Coronary artery bypass grafting allows the most complete revascularization in one session, because all target coronary vessels larger than 1 mm can be bypassed in their distal segments. Once the patient has been turn-off for surgery, surgeons have to consider the most complete arterial revascularization in order to decrease the long-term necessity for re-revascularization; for instance patency rate of the left internal thoracic artery grafted to the distal part left anterior descending artery may be as high as 90-95% after 10 to 15 years. Early mortality following isolated CABG operation has been as low as 0.6 to 1% in the most recent period (reports from the University Hospital Berne and the University Hospital of Zurich); beside these excellent results, the CABG option seems to be less expensive than PCI with time, since the necessity for additional PCI is rather high following initial PCI, and the price of stent devices is still very high, particularly in Switzerland. Patients, insurance and experts in health care should be better and more honestly informed concerning the risk and costs of PCI and CABG procedures as well as about the much higher rate of subsequent interventions following PCI. Team approach for all patients in whom both options could be offered seems mandatory to avoid unbalanced information of the patients. Looking at the recent developments in transcatheter valve treatments, the revival of cardiological-cardiosurgical conferences seems to a good option to optimize the cooperation between the two medical specialties: cardiology and cardiac surgery.