Paving the road to recovery: the colorectal surgery ERAS pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Goodmaker CJG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8406880 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC2793377 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC9380676 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9283181 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7970406 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8225311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 pandemic presented an unexpected challenge for the surgical community in general and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) specialists in particular. This document aims to summarize recent evidence and experts' opinion and formulate recommendations to guide the surgical community on how to best organize the recovery plan for surgical activity across different sub-specialities after the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsRecommendations were developed through a Delphi process for establishment of expert consensus. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different surgical specialities following the COVID-19 crisis. Sixty-five experts from 24 countries, representing the entire EAES board, were invited. Fifty clinicians and six engineers accepted the invitation and drafted statements based on specific key questions. Anonymous voting on the statements was performed until consensus was achieved, defined by at least 70% agreement.ResultsA total of 92 consensus statements were formulated with regard to safe resumption of surgery across eight domains, addressing general surgery, upper GI, lower GI, bariatrics, endocrine, HPB, abdominal wall and technology/research. The statements addressed elective and emergency services across all subspecialties with specific attention to the role of MIS during the recovery plan. Eighty-four of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting (91.3%) and another 8 during the following round after substantial modification, resulting in a 100% consensus.ConclusionThe recommendations formulated by the EAES board establish a framework for resumption of surgery following COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on the role of MIS across surgical specialities. The statements have the potential for wide application in the clinical setting, education activities and research work across different healthcare systems.
| S-EPMC7653984 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9641326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to assess colorectal surgery outcomes, discharge destination, and readmission in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsAdult colorectal surgery patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2019-2020) and its colectomy and proctectomy procedure-targeted files were included. The prepandemic time period was defined from April 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The pandemic time period was defined from April 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 in quarterly intervals (Q2 April-June; Q3 July-September; Q4 October-December). Factors associated with morbidity and in-hospital mortality were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsAmong 62,393 patients, 34,810 patients (55.8%) underwent colorectal surgery prepandemic and 27,583 (44.2%) during the pandemic. Patients who had surgery during the pandemic had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class and presented more frequently with dependent functional status. The proportion of emergent surgeries increased (12.7% prepandemic versus 15.2% pandemic, P < 0.001), with less laparoscopic cases (54.0% versus 51.0%, P < 0.001). Higher rates of morbidity with a greater proportion of discharges to home and lesser proportion of discharges to skilled care facilities were observed with no considerable differences in length of stay or worsening readmission rates. Multivariable analysis demonstrated increased odds of overall and serious morbidity and in-hospital mortality, during Q3 and/or Q4 of the 2020 pandemic.ConclusionsDifferences in hospital presentation, inpatient care, and discharge disposition of colorectal surgery patients were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pandemic responses should emphasize balancing resource allocation, educating patients and providers on timely medical workup and management, and optimizing discharge coordination pathways.
| S-EPMC9868386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review evaluates the current and future role of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in the context of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs.There is substantial literature confirming the relationship between physical fitness and perioperative outcome in general. The few small studies in patients undergoing surgery within an ERAS program describe less fit individuals having a greater incidence of morbidity and mortality. There is evidence of increasing adoption of perioperative CPET, particularly in the UK. Although CPET-derived variables have been used to guide clinical decisions about choice of surgical procedure and level of perioperative care as well as to screen for uncommon comorbidities, the ability of CPET-derived variables to guide therapy and thereby improve outcome remains uncertain. Recent studies have reported a reduction in CPET-defined physical fitness following neoadjuvant therapies (chemo- and radio-therapy) prior to surgery. Preliminary data suggest that this effect may be associated with an adverse effect on clinical outcomes in less fit patients. Early reports suggest that CPET-derived variables can be used to guide the prescription of exercise training interventions and thereby improve physical fitness in patients prior to surgery (i.e., prehabilitation). The impact of such interventions on clinical outcomes remains uncertain.Perioperative CPET is finding an increasing spectrum of roles, including risk evaluation, collaborative decision-making, personalized care, monitoring interventions, and guiding prescription of prehabilitation. These indications are potentially of importance to patients having surgery within an ERAS program, but there are currently few publications specific to CPET in the context of ERAS programs.
| S-EPMC4315486 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPerioperative care in colorectal surgery is systematically defined in the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol. The ERAS protocol improves perioperative care in a multimodal way to enhance early and safe release from the hospital. Adequate compliance to the elements of the ERAS protocol is multifactorial. There are still opportunities to improve compliance of the protocol by actively involving the patient. The main objective of this study is to investigate whether compliance of selected items in the ERAS protocol can be improved through actively involving patients in the ERAS care pathway through the use of a patient-centred mobile application.MethodsA multicentre randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, who are 18 years or older and in possession of an eligible smartphone, will be included. Patients assigned to the intervention group will install a patient-centred mobile application to be guided through the ERAS care pathway. Patients in the control group will receive care as usual. Both groups will wear an activity tracker. The primary outcome is overall compliance to selected active elements of the ERAS protocol, as registered by the patient. Secondary outcomes include Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) such as health-related quality of life, physical activity, and patient satisfaction of received care. Care-related outcomes, such as length of hospital stay, number of complications, re-intervention, and readmission rates, will also be assessed.ResultsThe enrolment of patients will start in the second quarter of 2019. Data collection had not begun by the time this protocol was submitted.ConclusionWe hypothesize that by providing patients with a patient-centred mobile application, compliance to the active elements of ERAS protocol can be improved, resulting in an increased health-related quality of life, physical activity, and patient satisfaction.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register, NTR7314 , prospectively registered on the 9th of November 2017 ( http://www.trialregister.nl ).
| S-EPMC6719362 | biostudies-literature