RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Introducing new procedures and challenging established paradigms requires well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCT). However, RCT in surgery present unique challenges with much of treatment tailored to the individual patient circumstances, refined by experience and limited by organisational factors. There has been considerable debate over the outcomes of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) compared to AVF, but any differences may reflect differing practice and potential variability. It is essential, therefore, when considering an RCT of a novel surgical procedure or device that quality assurance (QA) is defined for both the new approach and the comparator. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the QA standards performed in RCT of AVG using a multi-national, multi-disciplinary approach and propose an approach for future RCT. METHOD: The methods of this have been previously registered (PROSPERO: CRD420234284280) and published. In summary, a four-stage review was performed: identification of RCT of AVG, initial review, multidisciplinary appraisal of QA methods and reconciliation. QA measures were sought in four areas - generic, credentialing, standardisation and monitoring, with data abstracted by a multi-national, multi-speciality review body. RESULTS: QA in RCT involving AVG in all four domains is highly variable, often sub-optimally described and has not improved over the past three decades. Few RCT established or defined a pre-RCT level of experience, none documented a pre-trial education programme, or had minimal standards of peri-operative management, no study had a defined pre-trial monitoring programme, and none assessed technical performance. CONCLUSION: QA in RCT is a relatively new area that is expanding to ensure evidence is reliable and reproducible. This review demonstrates that QA has not previously been detailed, but can be measured in surgical RCT of vascular access, and that a four-domain approach can easily be implemented into future RCT.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Decisions regarding the optimal vascular access for haemodialysis patients are becoming increasingly complex, and the provision of vascular access is open to variations in systems of care as well as surgical experience and practice. Two main surgical options are recognised: arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft (AVG). All recommendations regarding AVG are based on a limited number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). It is essential that when considering an RCT of a surgical procedure, an appropriate definition of quality assurance (QA) is made for both the new approach and the comparator, otherwise replication of results or implementation into clinical practice may differ from published results. The aim of this systematic review will be to assess the methodological quality of RCT involving AVG, and the QA measures implemented in delivering interventions in these trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed. A systematic search will be performed of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases to identify relevant literature. Studies will be selected by title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data collected will pertain to generic measures of QA, credentialing of investigators, procedural standardisation and performance monitoring. Trial methodology will be compared against a standardised template developed by a multinational, multispecialty review body with experience in vascular access. A narrative approach will be taken to synthesise and report data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, with the ultimate aim of providing recommendations for future RCT of AVG design.
