ABSTRACT
Background In the last two decades, many new interventions have been introduced with the ultimate goal of improving overall postoperative outcomes after cardiac operations in adults. We aimed to assess how often randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult cardiac surgery found significant mortality benefits for newer interventions versus older ones, whether observed treatment effect estimates changed over time and whether RCTs and non-randomized observational studies gave similar results.
Methods We searched journals likely to publish systematic reviews on adult cardiac surgery for meta-analyses of mortality outcomes and that included at least one RCT, with or without observational studies. Relative treatment effect sizes were evaluated overall, over time, and per study design.
Results 73 meta-analysis comparisons (824 study outcomes on mortality, 519 from RCTs, 305 from observational studies) were eligible. The median mortality effect size was 1.00, IQR 0.54-1.30 (1.00 among RCTs, 0.91 among observational studies, p=0.039). 4 RCTs and 6 observational studies reached p<0.005 favoring newer interventions. 2/73 meta-analyses reached p<0.005 favoring the newer interventions. Effect size for experimental interventions relative to controls did not change over time overall (p=0.64) or for RCTs (p=0.30), and there was a trend for increase in observational studies (p=0.027). In 34 meta-analyses with both RCTs (n=95) and observational studies (n=305), the median relative summary effect (summary effect in observational studies divided by summary effect in RCTs) was 0.87 (IQR, 0.55-1.29); meta-analysis of the relative summary effects yielded a summary of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.74-1.18).
Conclusions The vast majority of newer interventions had no mortality differences over older ones both overall and in RCTs in particular, while benefits for newer interventions were reported more frequently in observational studies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding has been received by any of the authors for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
No IRB required since this is an umbrella review of previously published meta analyses.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
All data are available from the authors upon request
Abbreviations
- HR
- hazard ratio
- OR
- odds ratio
- RCT
- randomized controlled trial
- RR
- risk ratio
- SRMA
- systematic review and meta-analysis
