Dataset Information

Fit for Surgery-feasibility of short-course multimodal individualized prehabilitation in high-risk frail colon cancer patients prior to surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prehabilitation is a promising modality for improving patient-related outcomes after major surgery; however, very little research has been done for those who may need it the most: the elderly and the frail. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of a short course multimodal prehabilitation prior to primary surgery in high-risk, frail patients with colorectal cancer and WHO performance status I and II.

Methods

The study was conducted as a single-center, prospective one-arm feasibility study of eight patients with colon cancer between October 4, 2018, and January 14, 2019. The intervention consisted of a physical training program tailored to the patients with both high-intensity interval training and resistance training three times a week in sessions of approximately 1 h in length, for a duration of at least 4 weeks, nutritional support with protein and vitamins, a consultation with a dietician, and medical optimization prior to surgery. Feasibility was evaluated regarding recruitment, retention, compliance and adherence, acceptability, and safety. Retention was evaluated as the number of patients that completed the intervention, with a feasibility goal of 75% completing the intervention. Compliance with the high-intensity training was evaluated as the number of sessions in which the patient achieved a minimum of 4 min > 90% of their maximum heart rate and adherence as the attended out of the offered training sessions.

Results

During the study period, 64 patients were screened for eligibility, and out of nine eligible patients, eight patients were included and seven completed the intervention (mean age 80, range 66-88). Compliance to the high-intensity interval training using 90% of maximum heart rate as the monitor of intensity was difficult to measure in several patients; however, adherence to the training sessions was 87%. Compliance with nutritional support was 57%. Half the patients felt somewhat overwhelmed by the multiple appointments and six out of seven reported difficulties with the dosage of protein.

Conclusions

This one-arm feasibility study indicates that multimodal prehabilitation including high-intensity interval training can be performed by patients with colorectal cancer and WHO performance status I and II.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov : the study current feasibility study was conducted prior to the initiation of a full ongoing randomized trial registered by NCT04167436; date of registration: November 18, 2019. Retrospectively registered. No separate prospectively registration of the feasibility trial was conducted but outlined by the approved study protocol (Danish Scientific Ethical Committee SJ-607).

SUBMITTER: Bojesen RD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8781359 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBreast cancer surgery results in numerous acute and long-term adverse outcomes; the degree to which these can be mitigated or prevented through prehabilitation is unknown.MethodsWe conducted a longitudinal, single-arm, mixed-methods study to examine the feasibility of prehabilitation in 22 women undergoing breast cancer surgery. All participants received an individualized exercise prescription including upper quadrant-specific resistance and mobility training and aerobic exercise for the duration of their surgical wait time. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment, adherence, attrition, and intervention-related adverse event rates. An exploratory investigation of intervention efficacy was conducted via a 6-min walk test, upper-quadrant strength and range of motion, volumetric chances associated with lymphedema, and participant-reported quality of life, fatigue, pain, and disability. Outcome assessments were conducted at baseline, prior to surgery, and at six and 12 weeks after surgery. Semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants (n = 5) and health-care providers (H; n = 2) were conducted to provide further insights about intervention feasibility. Qualitative data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive and deductive thematic analysis approach.ResultsRecruitment and attrition rates were 62 and 36%, respectively. Average prehabilitation duration was 31 days (range = 7-69 days). Seventy six percent of participants complied with at least 70% of their prehabilitation prescription. There was a clinically significant increase in the 6-min walk distance from baseline to the preoperative assessment (57 m, 95% CI = -7.52, 121.7). The interviews revealed that the intervention was favorably received by participants and HCPs and included suggestions that prehabilitation (i) should be offered to all surgical candidates, (ii) is an avenue to regain control in the preoperative period, (iii) is a facilitator of postoperative recovery, and (iv) is an opportunity to provide education regarding postoperative rehabilitation protocols. A preference for multimodal prehabilitation (including dietetic and psychological counseling) was also highlighted.ConclusionOur findings suggest that surgical prehabilitation in women with breast cancer is feasible. Data are hampered by study sample size and lack of a control group. Thus, randomized controlled trials to examine prehabilitation efficacy in people with breast cancer, especially interventions employing a multimodal strategy, are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundFor older, frail adults, exercise before surgery through prehabilitation (prehab) may hasten return recovery and reduce postoperative complications. We developed a smartwatch-based prehab program (BeFitMe) for older adults that encourages and tracks at-home exercise. The objective of this study was to assess patient perceptions about facilitators and barriers to prehab generally and to using a smartwatch prehab program among older adult thoracic surgery patients to optimize future program implementation.MethodsWe recruited patients, aged ≥50 years who had or were having surgery and were screened for frailty (Fried's Frailty Phenotype) at a thoracic surgery clinic at a single academic institution. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone after obtaining informed consent. Participants were given a description of the BeFitMe program. The interview questions were informed by The Five "Rights" of Clinical Decision-Making framework (Information, Person, Time, Channel, and Format) and sought to identify the factors perceived to influence smartwatch prehab program participation. Interview transcripts were transcribed and independently coded to identify themes in for each of the Five "Rights" domains.ResultsA total of 29 interviews were conducted. Participants were 52% men (n = 15), 48% Black (n = 14), and 59% pre-frail (n = 11) or frail (n = 6) with a mean age of 68 ± 9 years. Eleven total themes emerged. Facilitator themes included the importance of providers (right person) clearly explaining the significance of prehab (right information) during the preoperative visit (right time); providing written instructions and exercise prescriptions; and providing a preprogrammed and set-up (right format) Apple Watch (right channel). Barrier themes included pre-existing conditions and disinterest in exercise and/or technology. Participants provided suggestions to overcome the technology barrier, which included individualized training and support on usage and responsibilities.ConclusionsThis study reports the perceived facilitators and barriers to a smartwatch-based prehab program for pre-frail and frail thoracic surgery patients. The future BeFitMe implementation protocol must ensure surgical providers emphasize the beneficial impact of participating in prehab before surgery and provide a written prehab prescription; must include a thorough guide on smartwatch use along with the preprogrammed device to be successful. The findings are relevant to other smartwatch-based interventions for older adults.

Project description:BackgroundPrehabilitation aims at enhancing patients' functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs' results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect.ResultsWe included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost-benefit analyses, 12 cost-consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective.ConclusionsWe found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020182813.