Impact of an enhanced recovery pathway on length of stay and complications in elective radical cystectomy: a before and after cohort study.

Cystectomy ERAS Enhanced recovery Fluid management

Journal

Perioperative medicine (London, England)
ISSN: 2047-0525
Titre abrégé: Perioper Med (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101609072

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 13 05 2019
accepted: 22 07 2019
entrez: 24 8 2019
pubmed: 24 8 2019
medline: 24 8 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways aim to standardize and integrate perioperative care, incorporating the best available evidence-based practice throughout the perioperative period targeted at attenuating the surgical stress response while optimizing physiologic function, with the goal of facilitating recovery. Radical cystectomy is associated with significant postoperative morbidity, but comprehensive ERAS pathways have not been well studied in this population. This is a before and after cohort study of an ERAS pathway for radical cystectomy at a large academic medical center. Following introduction of the ERAS pathway and a wash in period, we prospectively collected data from the next 100 consecutive subjects undergoing radical cystectomy with the ERAS pathway. This cohort was compared to a retrospective cohort of 100 consecutive patients undergoing radical cystectomy with traditional care. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes included perioperative management, time to recovery milestones, complications, and costs. Implementation of an ERAS pathway for radical cystectomy was associated with reduced hospital length of stay (median LOS 10 days (IQR = 8-18) vs 7 days (IQR = 6-11); Our data support the use of an ERAS pathway for radical cystectomy and add to the increasing body of literature supporting enhanced recovery over a wide variety of procedures. Not applicable.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways aim to standardize and integrate perioperative care, incorporating the best available evidence-based practice throughout the perioperative period targeted at attenuating the surgical stress response while optimizing physiologic function, with the goal of facilitating recovery. Radical cystectomy is associated with significant postoperative morbidity, but comprehensive ERAS pathways have not been well studied in this population.
METHODS METHODS
This is a before and after cohort study of an ERAS pathway for radical cystectomy at a large academic medical center. Following introduction of the ERAS pathway and a wash in period, we prospectively collected data from the next 100 consecutive subjects undergoing radical cystectomy with the ERAS pathway. This cohort was compared to a retrospective cohort of 100 consecutive patients undergoing radical cystectomy with traditional care. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes included perioperative management, time to recovery milestones, complications, and costs.
RESULTS RESULTS
Implementation of an ERAS pathway for radical cystectomy was associated with reduced hospital length of stay (median LOS 10 days (IQR = 8-18) vs 7 days (IQR = 6-11);
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our data support the use of an ERAS pathway for radical cystectomy and add to the increasing body of literature supporting enhanced recovery over a wide variety of procedures.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
Not applicable.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31440369
doi: 10.1186/s13741-019-0120-4
pii: 120
pmc: PMC6704620
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

9

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interestsTM receives research funding and is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and consultant for Mallinckrodt. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Références

Br J Surg. 2006 Jul;93(7):800-9
pubmed: 16775831
Ann Surg. 2007 Jun;245(6):867-72
pubmed: 17522511
Urology. 2007 Jun;69(6):1107-11
pubmed: 17572196
BJU Int. 2008 Mar;101(6):698-701
pubmed: 18190646
Ann Surg. 2008 Aug;248(2):189-98
pubmed: 18650627
Eur Urol. 2009 Jan;55(1):164-74
pubmed: 18675501
Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Oct;5(10):552-8
pubmed: 18695704
Arch Surg. 2009 Oct;144(10):961-9
pubmed: 19841366
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Jan;210(1):93-9
pubmed: 20123338
Eur Urol. 2013 Mar;63(3):475-82
pubmed: 22695241
Clin Nutr. 2013 Dec;32(6):879-87
pubmed: 24189391
J Urol. 2014 Jul;192(1):50-5
pubmed: 24518775
Eur Urol. 2014 Aug;66(2):265-72
pubmed: 24630419
Anesth Analg. 2014 May;118(5):1052-61
pubmed: 24781574
Scand J Urol. 2015 Apr;49(2):133-41
pubmed: 25331367
ANZ J Surg. 2015 Jul-Aug;85(7-8):514-20
pubmed: 25781409
Can J Urol. 2015 Jun;22(3):7817-23
pubmed: 26068632
BJU Int. 2017 Jan;119(1):38-49
pubmed: 27128851
Eur Urol. 2016 Dec;70(6):995-1003
pubmed: 27297680
JAMA Surg. 2017 Mar 1;152(3):292-298
pubmed: 28097305
Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Dec;4(6):889-894
pubmed: 28753885
World J Surg. 2018 Sep;42(9):2701-2707
pubmed: 29750321
World J Surg. 2019 Jan;43(1):1-8
pubmed: 30116862

Auteurs

W Jonathan Dunkman (WJ)

1Division of General, Vascular and Transplant Anesthesia, Duke University, Durham, NC USA.

Michael W Manning (MW)

1Division of General, Vascular and Transplant Anesthesia, Duke University, Durham, NC USA.

John Whittle (J)

1Division of General, Vascular and Transplant Anesthesia, Duke University, Durham, NC USA.

John Hunting (J)

2Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University, Durham, NC USA.

Edward N Rampersaud (EN)

3Division of Urology, Duke University, Durham, NC USA.

Brant A Inman (BA)

3Division of Urology, Duke University, Durham, NC USA.

Julie K Thacker (JK)

4Division of Surgical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC USA.

Timothy E Miller (TE)

1Division of General, Vascular and Transplant Anesthesia, Duke University, Durham, NC USA.

Classifications MeSH