Project description:BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs are associated with reduced hospital morbidity and mortality. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether the introduction of ERAS care improved the adverse events in colorectal surgery. In a cohort study, mortality, morbidity, and length of stay were compared between ERAS patients and carefully matched historical controls. METHODS: Patients were matched for their type of disease, the type of surgery, P-Possum (Portsmouth-Possum), CR-Possum (Colorectal-Possum) Physiological and Operative Score for Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (POSSUM), gender, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. The primary outcome measures of this study were mortality and morbidity. Secondary outcome measures were fluid intake, length of hospital stay, the number of relaparotomies, and the number of readmissions within 30 days. Data on the ERAS patients were collected prospectively. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients treated according to the ERAS program were compared with 122 patients who received conventional postoperative care. The two groups were comparable with respect to age, ASA grade, P-Possum (Portsmouth-Possum), CR-Possum (Colorectal-Possum) score, type of surgery, stoma formation, type of disease, and gender. Morbidity was lower in the ERAS group compared to the control group (14.8% versus 33.6% respectively; P = <0.01). Patients in the ERAS group received significantly less fluid and spent fewer days in the hospital (median 6 days, range 3-50 vs. median 9 days, range 3-138; P = 0.032). There was no difference between the ERAS and the control group for mortality (0% vs. 1.6%; P = 0.55) and readmission rate (3.3% vs. 1.6%; P = 0.60). CONCLUSION: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program reduces morbidity and the length of hospital stay for patients undergoing elective colonic or rectal surgery.
Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced ERAS program application in colorectal surgery across hospitals in the Lazio region (central district in Italy) participating in the "Lazio Network" project.MethodsA multi-institutional database was constructed. All patients included in this study underwent elective colorectal surgery for both malignant and benign disease between January 2019 and December 2020. Emergency procedures were excluded. The population was divided into 2 groups: a pre-COVID-19 group (PG) of patients operated on between February and December 2019 and a COVID-19 group (CG) of patients operated on between February and December 2020, during the first 2 waves of the pandemic in Italy.ResultsThe groups included 622 patients in the PG and 615 in the CG treated in 8 hospitals of the network. The mean number of items applied was higher in the PG (65.6% vs. 56.6%, p < 0.001) in terms of preoperative items (64.2% vs. 50.7%, p < 0.001), intraoperative items (65.0% vs. 53.3%, p < 0.001), and postoperative items (68.8% vs. 63.2%, p < 0.001). Postoperative recovery was faster in the PG, with a shorter time to first flatus, first stool, autonomous mobilization and discharge (6.82 days vs. 7.43 days, p = 0.021). Postoperative complications, mortality and reoperations were similar among the groups.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the application of ERAS in the centers of the "Lazio Network" study group, with a reduction in adherence to the ERAS protocol in terms of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative items. In addition, in the CG, the patients had worse postoperative outcomes with respect to recovery and discharge.
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the effects of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) on racial disparities in postoperative length of stay (pLOS) after colorectal surgery.BackgroundRacial disparities in surgical outcomes exist. We hypothesized that ERAS would reduce disparities in pLOS between black and white patients.MethodsPatients undergoing ERAS in 2015 were 1:1 matched by race/ethnicity, age, sex, and procedure to a pre-ERAS group from 2010 to 2014. After stratification by race/ethnicity, expected pLOS was calculated using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Risk Calculator. Primary outcome was the observed pLOS and observed-to-expected difference in pLOS. Secondary outcomes were National Surgical Quality Improvement Project postoperative complications including 30-day readmissions and mortality. Adjusted sensitivity analyses on pLOS were also performed.ResultsOf 420 patients (210 ERAS and 210 pre-ERAS) examined, 28.3% were black. Black and white patients were similar in age, body mass index, sex, American Anesthesia Association class, and minimally invasive approaches. Within the pre-ERAS group, black patients stayed a mean of 2.7 days longer than expected compared with white patients (P < 0.05). Overall, ERAS patients had a significantly shorter pLOS (5.7 vs 8 days) and observed-to-expected difference (-0.7 vs 1.4 days) compared with pre-ERAS patients (P < 0.01). In the ERAS group, disparities in pLOS were reduced with no differences in readmissions or mortality between black and white patients. On sensitivity analyses, race/ethnicity remained a significant predictor of pLOS among pre-ERAS patients, but not for ERAS patients.ConclusionsERAS eliminated racial differences in pLOS between black and white patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Reduced pLOS occurred without increases in mortality, readmissions, and most postoperative complications. ERAS may provide a practical approach to reducing disparities in surgical outcomes.
Project description:BackgroundWhilst Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) has been widely accepted in the international colorectal surgery community, there remains significant variations in ERAS programme implementations, compliance rates and best practice recommendations in international guidelines.MethodsA questionnaire was distributed to colorectal surgeons from Australia and New Zealand after ethics approval. It evaluated specialist attitudes towards the effectiveness of specific ERAS interventions in improving short term outcomes after colorectal surgery. The data were analysed using a rating scale and graded response model in item response theory (IRT) on Stata MP, version 15 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).ResultsOf 300 colorectal surgeons, 95 (31.7%) participated in the survey. Of eighteen ERAS interventions, this study identified eight strategies as most effective in improving ERAS programmes alongside early oral feeding and mobilisation. These included pre-operative iron infusion for anaemic patients (IRT score = 7.82 [95% CI: 6.01-9.16]), minimally invasive surgery (IRT score = 7.77 [95% CI: 5.96-9.07]), early in-dwelling catheter removal (IRT score = 7.69 [95% CI: 5.83-9.01]), pre-operative smoking cessation (IRT score = 7.68 [95% CI: 5.49-9.18]), pre-operative counselling (IRT score = 7.44 [95% CI: 5.58-8.88]), avoiding drains in colon surgery (IRT score = 7.37 [95% CI: 5.17-8.95]), avoiding nasogastric tubes (IRT score = 7.29 [95% CI: 5.32-8.8]) and early drain removal in rectal surgery (IRT score = 5.64 [95% CI: 3.49-7.66]).ConclusionsThis survey has demonstrated the current attitudes of colorectal surgeons from Australia and New Zealand regarding ERAS interventions. Eight of the interventions assessed in this study including pre-operative iron infusion for anaemic patients, minimally invasive surgery, early in-dwelling catheter removal, pre-operative smoking cessation, pre-operative counselling, avoidance of drains in colon surgery, avoiding nasogastric tubes and early drain removal in rectal surgery should be considered an important part of colorectal ERAS programmes.
Project description:The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.
Project description:BackgroundIncreased length of stay after surgery is associated with increased healthcare utilization and adverse patient outcomes. While enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been shown to reduce length of stay after colorectal surgery in trial settings, their effectiveness in real-world settings is more uncertain. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of ERAS protocol implementation on length of stay after colorectal surgery, using real-world data.MethodsIn 2012, ERAS protocols were introduced at 15 Ontario hospitals as part of the iERAS study. A cohort of patients undergoing colorectal surgery treated at these hospitals between 2008 and 2019 was created using health administrative data. Mean length of stay was computed for the intervals before and after ERAS implementation. Interrupted time series analyses were performed for predefined subgroups, namely all colorectal surgery, colorectal surgery without complications, right-sided colorectal surgery, and left-sided colorectal surgery. Sensitivity analyses were then conducted using adjusted length of stay, accounting for length of stay predictors, including: patient age, sex, marginalization, co-morbidities, and diagnosis; surgeon volume of cases, years in practice, and colorectal surgery expertise; hospital volume; and other contextual factors, including procedure type and timing, surgical approach, and in-hospital complications.ResultsA total of 32 612 patients underwent colorectal surgery during the study interval. ERAS implementation led to a decrease in length of stay of 1.05 days (13.7%). Larger decreases in length of stay were seen with more complex surgeries, with a level change of 1.17 days (15.6%) noted for the subgroup of patients undergoing left-sided colorectal surgery. The observed decreases in length of stay were durable for the length of the study interval in all analyses. When adjusting for predictors of length of stay, the effect of ERAS implementation on length of stay was larger (reduction of 1.46 days).ConclusionIntroducing formal ERAS protocols reduces length of stay after colorectal surgery significantly, independent of temporal trends toward decreasing length of stay. These effects are durable, demonstrating that ERAS protocol implementation is an effective hospital-level intervention to reduce length of stay after colorectal surgery.
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant disruptions to healthcare, including reduced administration of routinely recommended HPV vaccines in a number of European countries. Because the extent and trends of accumulated vaccine dose deficits may vary by country, decision-makers need country-specific information regarding vaccine deficits to plan effective catch-up initiatives. To address this knowledge gap in Switzerland and Greece, this study used a previously published COVID-19 recovery calculator and historical vaccine sales data to quantify the cumulative number of missed doses and the catch-up rate required to clear the deficit in Switzerland and Greece. The resultant cumulative deficit in HPV doses for Switzerland and Greece were 24.4% and 21.7%, respectively, of the total number of doses disseminated in 2019. To clear the dose deficit by December 2025, monthly vaccination rates must be increased by 6.3% and 6.0% compared to 2019 rates in Switzerland and Greece, respectively. This study demonstrates that administration rates of routine HPV vaccines decreased significantly among Swiss and Greek adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic and that a sustained increase in vaccination rates is necessary to recover the HPV dose deficits identified and to prevent long-term public health consequences.
Project description:BackgroundSurgery remains the first curative treatment for colorectal cancer. Prehabilitation seems to attenuate the loss of lean mass in the early postoperative period. However, its long-term role has not been studied. Lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic has forced to carry out the prehabilitation program at home. This study aimed to assess the effect of home prehabilitation on body composition, complications, and hospital stay in patients undergoing oncological colorectal surgery.MethodsA prospective and randomized clinical study was conducted in 20 patients operated of colorectal cancer during COVID-19 lockdown (13 March to 21 June 2020) in a single university clinical hospital. Patients were randomized into two study groups (10 per group): prehabilitation vs standard care. Changes in lean mass and fat mass at 45 and 90 days after surgery were measured using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis.ResultsPrehabilitation managed to reduce hospital stay (4.8 vs 7.2 days, p = 0.052) and postoperative complications (20% vs 50%, p = 0.16). Forty-five days after surgery, the loss of lean mass decreased (1.7% vs 7.1%, p = 0.17). These differences in lean mass were attenuated at 90 days; however, the standard care group increased considerably their fat mass compared to the prehabilitation group (+ 8.72% vs - 8.16%).ConclusionsHome prehabilitation has proven its effectiveness, achieving an attenuation of lean mass loss in the early postoperative period and a lower gain in fat mass in the late postoperative period. In addition, it has managed to reduce hospital stays and postoperative complications.Registration numberThis article is part of an ongoing, randomized, and controlled clinical trial approved by the ethics committee of our hospital and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov in August 2018 with registration number NCT03618329.
Project description:BackgroundTo focus on critical care needs of coronavirus patients, elective operations were postponed and selectively rescheduled. The effect of these measures on patients was unknown. We sought to understand patients' perspectives regarding surgical care during the CoVID-19 pandemic to improve future responses.MethodsWe performed qualitative interviews with patients whose operations were postponed. Interviews explored patient responses to: 1) surgery postponement; 2) experience of surgery; 3) impacts of rescheduling/postponement on emotional/physical health; 4) identifying areas of improvement. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed through an integrated approach.ResultsPatient perspectives fell within the following domains: 1) reactions to surgery postponement/rescheduling; 2) experience of surgery during CoVID-19 pandemic; 3) reflections on communication; 4) patient trust in surgeons and healthcare.ConclusionsWe found no patient-reported barriers to rescheduling surgery. Several areas of care which could be improved (communication). There was an unexpected sense of trust in surgeons and the hospital.
Project description:BackgroundEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs are well-established, resulting in improved outcomes and shorter length of hospital stay (LOS). Same-day discharge (SDD), or "hyper-ERAS", is a natural progression of ERAS. This systematic review aims to compare the safety and efficacy of SDD against conventional ERAS in colorectal surgery.MethodsThe protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (394793). A systematic search was performed in major databases to identify relevant articles, and a narrative systematic review was performed. Primary outcomes were readmission rates and length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were operative time and blood loss, postoperative pain, morbidity, nausea or vomiting, and patient satisfaction. Risks of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.ResultsThirteen studies were included, with five single-arm and eight comparative studies, of which one was a randomised controlled trial. This comprised a total of 38,854 patients (SDD: 1622; ERAS: 37,232). Of the 1622 patients on the SDD pathway, 1590 patients (98%) were successfully discharged within 24 h of surgery. While most studies had an overall low risk of bias, there was considerable variability in inclusion criteria, types of surgery or anaesthesia, and discharge criteria. SDD resulted in a significantly reduced postoperative LOS, without increasing risk of 30-day readmission. Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity rates were comparable between both groups. Operative duration was shorter in the SDD group. Patient-reported satisfaction was high in the SDD cohort.ConclusionSDD protocols appear to be safe and feasible in selected patients undergoing major colorectal operations. Randomised controlled trials are necessary to further substantiate these findings.