Enhanced recovery after surgery programs versus traditional care for colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
TL;DR: Enhanced recovery after surgery programs are safe and effective, and increased implementation is justified for perioperative care in colorectal surgery.
Abstract: BACKGROUND:Enhanced recovery after surgery programs in colorectal surgery aim to attenuate the surgical stress response, reduce complications and shorten hospital stay.OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery programs in colorectal surgery in co
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Implementation of an ER protocol led to improved patient satisfaction and substantial reduction in LOS, complication rates, and costs for patients undergoing both open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery, demonstrating that small investments in the perioperative environment can lead to large returns.
Abstract: Background Colorectal surgery is associated with considerable morbidity and prolonged length of stay (LOS). Recognizing the need for improvement, we implemented an enhanced recovery (ER) protocol for all patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery at an academic institution. Study Design A multidisciplinary team implemented an ER protocol based on: preoperative counseling with active patient participation, carbohydrate loading, multimodal analgesia with avoidance of intravenous opioids, intraoperative goal-directed fluid resuscitation, immediate postoperative feeding, and ambulation. Discharge requirements remained identical throughout. A before and after study design was undertaken comparing patients before (August 2012 to February 2013) and after implementation of an ER protocol (August 2013 to February 2014). Risk stratification was performed using the NSQIP risk calculator to calculate the predicted LOS for each patient based on 23 variables. Results One hundred and nine consecutive patients underwent surgery within the ER protocol compared with 98 consecutive historical controls (conventional). The risk-adjusted predicted LOS was similar for each group at 5.1 and 5.2 days. Substantial reductions were seen in LOS, morphine equivalents, intravenous fluids, return of bowel function, and overall complications with the ER group. There was a $7,129/patient reduction in direct cost, corresponding to a cost savings of $777,061 in the ER group. Patient satisfaction as measured by Press Ganey improved considerably during the study period. Conclusions Implementation of an ER protocol led to improved patient satisfaction and substantial reduction in LOS, complication rates, and costs for patients undergoing both open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery. These data demonstrate that small investments in the perioperative environment can lead to large returns.
321 citations
Cites background from "Enhanced recovery after surgery pro..."
...4 days.(15) In colorectal surgery specifically, traditional fluid management strategies appear to be of particular importance....
[...]
TL;DR: The goal of this consensus initiated by the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) was to establish European consensus guidelines for the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis and the strategy to reach the consensus involved several steps and follows the standard operating procedures for consensus guidelines of ECCO.
Abstract: The goal of this consensus initiated by the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) was to establish European consensus guidelines for the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis. The strategy to reach the consensus involved several steps and follows the standard operating procedures for consensus guidelines of ECCO. An open call for chairs and participants for this consensus was made (see acknowledgements and www.ecco-ibd). Participants were selected by the Guidelines' Committee of ECCO (GuiCom) on the basis of their publication record and a personal statement. Four working groups (WGs) were formed: WG 1 on the preoperative phase, WG 2 on the intraoperative phase, WG 3 on the postoperative phase and WG 4 on special situations. Participants were asked to answer relevant questions on current practice and areas of controversy related to the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis based on their experience as well as evidence from the literature (Delphi procedure).1 In parallel, the WG members performed a systematic literature search of their topic with the appropriate key words using Medline/PubMed/ISI/Scopus and the Cochrane database, as well as their own files. Provisional guideline statements (with supporting text) were then written by the WG chairs based upon answers to the questionnaire and were circulated among the WG members, prompting discussions and exchange of literature evidence. The proposed statements and the supporting text were submitted to an online platform for online discussion and two online voting procedures among all Consensus participants for the first voting procedure and also for all national representatives of ECCO for the second voting procedure. The WGs finally met in Belgrade on September 25th 2013 for a final face-to-face discussion and to vote and consent on the statements. Technically this was done by projecting the statements and revising them on screen until a consensus was reached. Consensus was defined …
271 citations
TL;DR: While ERAS was initially developed for colonic resections, these principles are being used in a range of operations, and there is also a continuous update of care protocols as the fields develop.
Abstract: ERAS is the acronym for enhanced recovery after surgery, a term often used to describe perioperative care programs that have been shown to improve outcomes after major surgery. This article gives a brief history of the development from fast-track surgery to ERAS. Today, the full meaning of ERAS goes beyond just a protocol for perioperative care with the initiation of a novel multiprofessional, multidisciplinary medical society: the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society for Perioperative Care (www.erassociety.org). The ERAS Society is involved in the development of evidence-based guidelines. These guidelines form the basis for an implementation program of the ERAS principles to practice. While ERAS was initially developed for colonic resections, these principles are being used in a range of operations, and there is also a continuous update of care protocols as the fields develop. A key mechanism behind the effectiveness of ERAS is the dampening of the stress responses to the surgical insult combined with the use of treatments that support return of functions that delay recovery in traditional care. The article also gives some insights to why the protocols work and reports the effects of ERAS protocols.
230 citations
TL;DR: There are no pharmacologic agents known to reduce the risk of AKI or treat established AKI, and remote ischemic preconditioning is an exciting future strategy, but more work is needed before widespread implementation.
Abstract: Approximately 18% of patients undergoing cardiac surgery experience AKI (on the basis of modern standardized definitions of AKI), and approximately 2%–6% will require hemodialysis. The development of AKI after cardiac surgery portends poor short- and long-term prognoses, with those developing RIFLE failure or AKI Network stage III having an almost 2-fold increase in the risk of death. AKI is caused by a variety of factors, including nephrotoxins, hypoxia, mechanical trauma, inflammation, cardiopulmonary bypass, and hemodynamic instability, and it may be affected by the clinician’s choice of fluids and vasoactive agents as well as the transfusion strategy used. The risk of AKI may be ameliorated by avoidance of nephrotoxins, achievement of adequate glucose control preoperatively, and use of goal-directed therapy hemodynamic strategies. Remote ischemic preconditioning is an exciting future strategy, but more work is needed before widespread implementation. Unfortunately, there are no pharmacologic agents known to reduce the risk of AKI or treat established AKI.
220 citations
TL;DR: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of CT‐assessed sarcopenia on short‐ and long‐term outcomes in patients undergoing surgical resection of gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary malignancies.
Abstract: Background
Preoperative risk assessment in cancer surgery is of importance to improve treatment and outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of CT-assessed sarcopenia on short- and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing surgical resection of gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary malignancies.
Methods
A systematic search of Embase, PubMed and Web of Science was performed to identify relevant studies published before 30 September 2014. PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed. Screening for inclusion, checking the validity of included studies and data extraction were carried out independently by two investigators.
Results
After screening 692 records, 13 observational studies with a total of 2884 patients were included in the analysis. There was wide variation in the reported prevalence of sarcopenia (17·0–79 per cent). Sarcopenia was independently associated with reduced overall survival in seven of ten studies, irrespective of tumour site. Hazard ratios (HRs) of up to 3·19 (hepatic cancer), 1·63 (pancreatic cancer), 1·85 (colorectal cancer) and 2·69 (colorectal liver metastases, CLM) were reported. For oesophageal cancer, the HR was 0·31 for increasing muscle mass. In patients with colorectal cancer and CLM, sarcopenia was independently associated with postoperative mortality (colorectal cancer: odds ratio (OR) 43·3), complications (colorectal cancer: OR 0·96 for increasing muscle mass; CLM: OR 2·22) and severe complications (CLM: OR 3·12).
Conclusion
Sarcopenia identified before surgery by single-slice CT is associated with impaired overall survival in gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary malignancies, and increased postoperative morbidity in patients with colorectal cancer with or without hepatic metastases.
217 citations
References
More filters
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.
Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7
In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).
Box 1
Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA
46,935 citations
TL;DR: Funnel plots, plots of the trials' effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials.
Abstract: Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure
37,989 citations
"Enhanced recovery after surgery pro..." refers background in this paper
...1 considered significant.(23) for all other comparisons, statistical significance was defined by p < 0....
[...]
...however, other factors such as study size and clinical and statistical heterogeneity may also cause an asymmetric funnel in the present meta-analysis.(23) fourth, the confidence in the findings was limited because the quality of the evidence for all outcomes was low to moderate on the GRaDe scale, and none had high quality....
[...]
TL;DR: A structured summary is provided including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings.
31,379 citations
"Enhanced recovery after surgery pro..." refers methods in this paper
...the present meta-analysis was based on 13 randomized controlled trials and followed the recommendations of the PRisma statement.(17) the present study was strengthened by the inclusion of only randomized controlled trials, stringent inclusion criteria, rigorous search strategy, avoidance of a language limitation, and use of the GRaDe approach to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome....
[...]
...the present meta-analysis was performed consistent with the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting items for systematic Reviews and meta-analyses (PRisma) statement.(17)...
[...]
TL;DR: It is concluded that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity, and one or both should be presented in publishedMeta-an analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.
Abstract: The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.
25,460 citations
TL;DR: The new complication classification appears reliable and may represent a compelling tool for quality assessment in surgery in all parts of the world.
Abstract: Growing demand for health care, rising costs, constrained resources, and evidence of variations in clinical practice have triggered interest in measuring and improving the quality of health care delivery. For a valuable quality assessment, relevant data on outcome must be obtained in a standardized and reproducible manner to allow comparison among different centers, between different therapies and within a center over time.1–3 Objective and reliable outcome data are increasingly requested by patients and payers (government or private insurance) to assess quality and costs of health care. Moreover, health policy makers point out that the availability of comparative data on individual hospital's and physician's performance represents a powerful market force, which may contribute to limit the costs of health care while improving quality.4
Conclusive assessments of surgical procedures remain limited by the lack of consensus on how to define complications and to stratify them by severity.1,5–8 In 1992, we proposed general principles to classify complications of surgery based on a therapy-oriented, 4-level severity grading.1 Subsequently, the severity grading was refined and applied to compare the results of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy9 and liver transplantation.10 This classification has also been used by others11–13 and was recently suggested to serve as the basis to assess the outcome of living related liver transplantation in the United States (J. Trotter, personal communication). However, the classification system has not yet been widely used in the surgical literature.
The strength of the previous classification relied on the principle of grading complications based on the therapy used to treat the complication. This approach allows identification of most complications and prevents down-rating of major negative outcomes. This is particularly important in retrospective analyses. However, we felt that modifications were necessary, particularly in grading life-threatening complications and long-term disability due to a complication. We also felt that the duration of the hospital stay can no longer be used as a criterion to grade complications. Although definitions of negative outcomes rely to a large extend on subjective “value” appraisals, the grading system must be tested in a large cohort of patients. Finally, a classification is useful only if widely accepted and applied throughout different countries and surgical cultures. Such a validation was not done with the previous classification.
Therefore, the aim of the current study was 3-fold: first, to propose an improved classification of surgical complications based on our experience gained with the previous classification1; second, to test this classification in a large cohort of patients who underwent general surgery; and third, to assess the reproducibility and acceptability of the classification through an international survey.
23,435 citations