AIM: To assess the safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in gastrectomy and influences on nutrition state and insulin-resistance. METHODS: Our ERAS program involved shortening the fasting periods and preoperative carbohydrate loading. Eighty gastrectomy patients were randomly assigned to either the conventional group (CG) or ERAS group (EG). We assessed the clinical characteristics and postoperative outcomes prospectively. The primary endpoint was noninferiority in timely discharge from the hospital within 12 d. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of aspiration at anesthesia induction, incidence of postoperative complications, health related quality of life (HRQOL) using the SF8 Health Survey questionnaire, nutrition state [e.g., albumin, transthyretin (TTR), retinal-binding protein (RBP), and transferrin (Tf)], the homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-R) index, postoperative urine volume, postoperative weight change, and postoperative oral intake. RESULTS: The ERAS program was noninferior to the conventional program in achieving discharge from the hospital within 12 d (95.0% vs 92.5% respectively; 95%CI: -10.0%-16.0%). There was no significant difference in postoperative morbidity between the two groups. Adverse events such as vomiting and aspiration associated with the induction of general anesthesia were not observed. There were no significant differences with respect to postoperative urine volume, weight change, and oral intake between the two groups. EG patients with preoperative HOMA-R scores above 2.5 experienced significant attenuation of their HOMA-R scores on postoperative day 1 compared to CG patients (P = 0.014). There were no significant differences with respect to rapid turnover proteins (TTR, RBP and Tf) or HRQOL scores using the SF8 method. CONCLUSION: Applying the ERAS program to patients who undergo gastrectomy is safe, and improves insulin resistance with no deterioration in QOL.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To assess the safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in gastrectomy and influences on nutrition state and insulin-resistance. METHODS: Our ERAS program involved shortening the fasting periods and preoperative carbohydrate loading. Eighty gastrectomy patients were randomly assigned to either the conventional group (CG) or ERAS group (EG). We assessed the clinical characteristics and postoperative outcomes prospectively. The primary endpoint was noninferiority in timely discharge from the hospital within 12 d. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of aspiration at anesthesia induction, incidence of postoperative complications, health related quality of life (HRQOL) using the SF8 Health Survey questionnaire, nutrition state [e.g., albumin, transthyretin (TTR), retinal-binding protein (RBP), and transferrin (Tf)], the homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-R) index, postoperative urine volume, postoperative weight change, and postoperative oral intake. RESULTS: The ERAS program was noninferior to the conventional program in achieving discharge from the hospital within 12 d (95.0% vs 92.5% respectively; 95%CI: -10.0%-16.0%). There was no significant difference in postoperative morbidity between the two groups. Adverse events such as vomiting and aspiration associated with the induction of general anesthesia were not observed. There were no significant differences with respect to postoperative urine volume, weight change, and oral intake between the two groups. EG patients with preoperative HOMA-R scores above 2.5 experienced significant attenuation of their HOMA-R scores on postoperative day 1 compared to CGpatients (P = 0.014). There were no significant differences with respect to rapid turnover proteins (TTR, RBP and Tf) or HRQOL scores using the SF8 method. CONCLUSION: Applying the ERAS program to patients who undergo gastrectomy is safe, and improves insulin resistance with no deterioration in QOL.
Authors: K C H Fearon; O Ljungqvist; M Von Meyenfeldt; A Revhaug; C H C Dejong; K Lassen; J Nygren; J Hausel; M Soop; J Andersen; H Kehlet Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2005-04-21 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: J Hausel; J Nygren; M Lagerkranser; P M Hellström; F Hammarqvist; C Almström; A Lindh; A Thorell; O Ljungqvist Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Janet Baack Kukreja; Qiuling Shi; Courtney M Chang; Mohamed A Seif; Brandon M Sterling; Ting-Yu Chen; Kelly M Creel; Ashish M Kamat; Colin P Dinney; Neema Navai; Jay B Shah; Xin Shelley Wang Journal: Surg Innov Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 2.058