Dataset Information

Structured presurgery prehabilitation for aged patients undergoing elective surgery significantly improves surgical outcomes and reduces cost: A nonrandomized sequential comparative prospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

With increasing global life expectancy, the number of major surgeries performed on aged adults invariably increases. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of a structured prehabilitative program for aged colorectal cancer patients in improving short-term surgical outcomes.

Methods

A prospective philanthropically sponsored Programme for Enhanced Elderly Recovery at Sengkang General Hospital (PEERS) was initiated in February 2017 for patients ≥70-years-old who were due to undergo elective colectomies. These patients were put through a 2- to 4-week-long program before surgery, which included geriatric assessment, nutrition supplementation, and resistance training. They were compared with patients from a similar age group before PEERS was introduced (non-PEERS).

Results

Fifty-eight patients, with a median age of 78.5 (70-93) years, were recruited from a single institution to undergo PEERS. Baseline characteristics between the groups were similar. There was no significant improvement of anthropometric and functional characteristics before and after PEERS. Duration of hospitalization was shorter in the PEERS group (9 vs 11 days, P = 0.01). Both groups had similar 30-days' morbidity rates (8.6% vs 17.4%, P = 0.26). The PEERS group had significant improvement in their median EuroQol-5 Dimension score (0.70 presurgery to 0.80 6-months' postsurgery, P = 0.01). After multivariate analysis, the average duration of hospitalization in the PEERS group was 6.8 days shorter (P = 0.018; CI, 1.2-12.4) after adjusting for modality of surgery and complications. This represented a cost saving of USD$11,838.80.

Conclusion

A standardized prehabilitation program for aged adults reduced the duration of hospitalization, improved the quality of life after surgery, and reduced costs.

SUBMITTER: Koh FH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9299996 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesFor years, many efforts have been invested to prepare patients, in particular, those with reduced physical and psychic status, much better to provide and finally achieve better outocme if there is time available to provide several beneficial measures.MethodsTherefore, the objective was to illustrate the concept and various single elements of a complex prehabilitation concept based on (i) selective references from the medical literature and (ii) own clinical experiences from clinical practice in general and abdominal surgery.ResultsPrehabiliation can be considered the solution of the efforts to improve preoperative status for patients in a disadvantageous status for almost all types of surgery and all other operative and/or interventional procedures. It is the targeted process to improve individual functionality and organ function before a planned (elective) surgical intervention; P. comprises basically nutritional, physical and psychological measures; P. focusses especially onto the elderly, frail and malnourished patients before a planned surgical intervention; the overall aim is to significantly improve final outcome characterized by shorter length of stay, lower complication rate and mortality as well as cost efficiency; P. is especially important in cancer surgery, in which the beneficial effects can be particularly implemented; P. programs and/or "Standard Operating Protocols" (SOP) may help to establish and materialize its single aspects and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). There is still further potential to reliably establish and to utilize the options of prehabilitation measures as listed above.ConclusionsPrehabiliation is an indispensable aspect in today's preparation for elective surgery, which needs to become obligatory part of the preparation measures to planned surgical interventions, which can further contribute to a better final outcome and ERAS as well as, in addtion, needs to be further developed and accomplished.

Project description:BackgroundRed blood cell (RBC) transfusions in surgical patients are associated with increased morbidity a hospital stay. However, little is known about how clinical and economic outcomes differ between appropriately and inappropriately transfused patients. We hypothesized that inappropriate RBC transfusions in elective surgical patients would significantly increase hospital cost. The aim of this study was to quantify the economic burden associated with inappropriate RBC transfusions.MethodsWe retrospectively included all adult patients admitted for elective non-cardiac surgery between January 2014 and March 2020. Patients were divided into three groups (not transfused, appropriately transfused and inappropriately transfused). The primary outcome was the excess in hospital cost in patients inappropriately transfused compared to non-transfused patients. Costs were calculated using a bottom-up approach and involving cost calculation on a granular level. According to international guidelines, transfusions were considered appropriate if administered with an ASA score of 1-2 and the last hemoglobin level measured before transfusion < 70 g/L, or with an ASA score ≥ 3 and the last hemoglobin level < 80 g/L. Cases where RBC transfusions were deemed necessary regardless of the Hb levels were reviewed by the patient blood management (PBM) board and classified accordingly. Secondary outcomes included total transfusion rate, transfusion index, and length of hospital stay. Statistical analysis was carried out by multivariable regression models.ResultsDuring the study period there were 54,922 consecutive surgical admissions, of these 1,997 received an RBC transfusion, with 1,125 considered inappropriate. The adjusted cost of each inappropriate RBC transfusions was estimated in United States dollars (USD) 9,779 (95% CI, 9,358 - 10,199; p < 0.001) and totaled USD 11,001,410 in our series. Inappropriately transfused patients stayed 1.6 times (95% CI, 1.5-1.6; p < 0.001) longer in hospital (10.6 days vs. 6.7 days) than non-transfused patients and a mean 2.35 RBC units per patient were administered.ConclusionInappropriate RBC transfusions in elective surgical patients seem to be common and may represent a significant economic burden. In our experience, inappropriate transfusions significantly increased hospital costs by an average of USD 9,779 compared to non-transfused patients. Through specific PBM policy, hospitals may improve cost-effectiveness of their elective surgical activity by lowering inappropriate transfusions.

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.