Dataset Information

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus conventional postoperative care in colorectal surgery.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Teeuwen PH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2793377 | biostudies-other | 2010 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a common postoperative complication with an incidence of nearly 15%. Relatively balanced fluid management, flexible use of vasoactive drugs, multimodal analgesia containing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are fundamental to ERAS protocols. However, these basic tenants may lead to an increased incidence of postoperative AKI.MethodsA search was done in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and reference lists to identify relevant studies from inception until May 2020 to be included in this study. Effects were summarized using pooled risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (Cls) with random effect model. Heterogeneity assessment, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were performed.ResultsA systematic review of nineteen cohort studies covering 17,205 patients, comparing impact of ERAS with conventional care on postoperative AKI was performed. Notably, the ERAS regimen did not increase the incidence of postoperative AKI compared with standard care (RR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.52; I2 = 53%). Both goal-directed fluid therapy (RR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.99-1.61; I2 = 55%) and restrictive fluid management (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.57-1.98; I2 = 60%) had no significant effect on the incidence of postoperative AKI. There was no significant statistical difference between different AKI diagnostic criteria (P = 0.43; I2 = 0%). ERAS group had significantly shorter hospital stay (MD: -1.54; 95% CI: -1.91 to -1.17; I2 = 66%). There was no statistical difference in 30-day readmission rate (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.20; I2 = 42%), 30-day reoperation rate (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.34; I2 = 42%) and mortality (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.11; I2 = 0%) between the two groups.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that ERAS protocols do not increase readmission or reoperation rates and mortality while significantly reducing LOS. Most importantly, the ERAS protocol was shown to have no promoting effect on the incidence of postoperative AKI. Even GDFT and restrictive fluid management cannot avoid the occurrence of postoperative AKI, and the ERAS protocol is still worth recommending and its safety is further confirmed.

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:BackgroundWith obesity prevalence projected to increase, the demand for bariatric surgery will consequently rise. Enhanced recovery programmes aim for improved recovery, earlier discharge, and more efficient use of resources following surgery. This systematic literature review aimed to evaluate the evidence available on the effects of enhanced recovery programmes after three common bariatric procedures: laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB).MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched for studies published in 2012-2019 comparing outcomes with enhanced recovery programmes versus conventional care after bariatric surgery in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Data were extracted and meta-analyses or descriptive analyses performed when appropriate using R.ResultsOf 1152 screened articles, seven relevant studies including 3592 patients were identified. Six reported outcomes for 1434 patients undergoing LRYGB; however, as only individual studies reported on LSG and OAGB these could not be included in the analyses. The meta-analysis revealed a significantly shorter mean duration of hospital-stay for LRYGB enhanced recovery programmes than conventional care (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.34 days [-2.01, -0.67]; p<0.0001), supported by sensitivity analysis excluding retrospective studies. Meta-analysis found no significant difference in 30-day readmission rate (risk ratio [95% CI]: 1.39 [0.84, 2.28]; p = 0.2010). Complication rates were inconsistently reported by Clavien-Dindo grade, but descriptive analysis showed generally higher low-grade rates for enhanced recovery programmes; the trend reversed for high-grade complications. Reoperation rates were rarely reported; no significant differences were seen.ConclusionThese results support enhanced recovery programmes allowing shorter inpatient stay without significant differences in readmission rate following LRYGB, although complication and reoperation rate comparisons were inconclusive. Further research is needed to fill current data gaps including the lack of studies on LSG and OAGB.

Project description:Importance:Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care has been reported to be associated with improvements in outcomes after colorectal surgery compared with traditional care. Objective:To determine the association between ERAS protocols and outcomes in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants:The Postoperative Outcomes Within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol (POWER) Study is a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 2084 consecutive adults scheduled for elective colorectal surgery who received or did not receive care in a self-declared ERAS center. Patients were recruited from 80 Spanish centers between September 15 and December 15, 2017. All patients included in this analysis had 1 month of follow-up. Exposures:Colorectal surgery and perioperative management were the exposures. Twenty-two individual ERAS items were assessed in all patients, regardless of whether they were included in an established ERAS protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary study outcome was moderate to severe postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included ERAS adherence, mortality, readmissions, reoperation rates, and hospital length of stay. Results:Between September 15 and December 15, 2017, 2084 patients were included in the study. Of these, 1286 individuals (61.7%) were men; mean age was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 59-77). A total of 879 patients (42.2%) presented with postoperative complications and 566 patients (27.2%) developed moderate to severe complications. The number of patients with moderate or severe complications was lower in the ERAS group (25.2% vs 30.3%; odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P?=?.01). The overall rate of adherence to the ERAS protocol was 63.6% (IQR, 54.5%-77.3%), and the rate for patients from hospitals self-declared as ERAS was 72.7% (IQR, 59.1%-81.8%) vs non-ERAS institutions, which was 59.1% (IQR, 50.0%-63.6%; P?<?.001). Adherence quartiles among patients receiving the highest and lowest ERAS components showed that the patients with the highest adherence rates had fewer moderate to severe complications (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.46; P?<?.001), overall complications (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.26-0.43; P?<?.001), and mortality (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.07-0.97; P?=?.06) compared with those who had the lowest adherence rates. Conclusions and Relevance:An increase in ERAS adherence appears to be associated with a decrease in postoperative complications.

Dataset Information

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus conventional postoperative care in colorectal surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets