Deborah S Keller1, Juan-Ramon Flores-Gonzalez2, Sergio Ibarra2, Ali Mahmood3, Eric M Haas3. 1. Colorectal Surgical Associates, Houston, TX, USA; Department of Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, 7900 Fannin, Suite 2700, Houston, TX 77054, USA. Electronic address: debby_keller@hotmail.com. 2. Colorectal Surgical Associates, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Colorectal Surgical Associates, Houston, TX, USA; Department of Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, 7900 Fannin, Suite 2700, Houston, TX 77054, USA; Minimally Invasive Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alvimopan's goal is to minimize postoperative ileus and optimize outcomes; however, evidence in laparoscopic surgery is lacking. Our goal was to evaluate the benefit of alvimopan in laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP). METHODS: Laparoscopic colorectal cases were stratified into alvimopan and control cohorts, then case-matched for comparability. All followed an identical ERP. The main outcomes were length of stay, complications, readmissions, and costs in the alvimopan and control groups. RESULTS: About 321 patients were analyzed in each cohort. Operative times were comparable (P = .08). Postoperatively, complication rates were similar (P = .29), with no difference in ileus (P = 1.00). The length of stay (3.69 vs 3.49 days; P = .16), readmission (2.8% vs 3.7%; P = .66) and reoperation rates (2.2% vs 1.6%; P = .77) were comparable for alvimopan and controls, respectively. Total costs were similar ($14,932.47 alvimopan vs $14,846.56 controls; P = .90), but the additional costs in the alvimopan group could translate to savings of $27,577 in the cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Alvimopan added no benefit in patient outcomes in laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an ERP. These results could drive a change in current practice. Controlled studies are warranted to define the cost and/or benefit in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND:Alvimopan's goal is to minimize postoperative ileus and optimize outcomes; however, evidence in laparoscopic surgery is lacking. Our goal was to evaluate the benefit of alvimopan in laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP). METHODS: Laparoscopic colorectal cases were stratified into alvimopan and control cohorts, then case-matched for comparability. All followed an identical ERP. The main outcomes were length of stay, complications, readmissions, and costs in the alvimopan and control groups. RESULTS: About 321 patients were analyzed in each cohort. Operative times were comparable (P = .08). Postoperatively, complication rates were similar (P = .29), with no difference in ileus (P = 1.00). The length of stay (3.69 vs 3.49 days; P = .16), readmission (2.8% vs 3.7%; P = .66) and reoperation rates (2.2% vs 1.6%; P = .77) were comparable for alvimopan and controls, respectively. Total costs were similar ($14,932.47 alvimopan vs $14,846.56 controls; P = .90), but the additional costs in the alvimopan group could translate to savings of $27,577 in the cohort. CONCLUSIONS:Alvimopan added no benefit in patient outcomes in laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an ERP. These results could drive a change in current practice. Controlled studies are warranted to define the cost and/or benefit in clinical practice.
Authors: Joseph C Carmichael; Deborah S Keller; Gabriele Baldini; Liliana Bordeianou; Eric Weiss; Lawrence Lee; Marylise Boutros; James McClane; Scott R Steele; Liane S Feldman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Elvio Mazzotta; Egina Criseida Villalobos-Hernandez; Juan Fiorda-Diaz; Alan Harzman; Fievos L Christofi Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Jean F Hamel; Charles Sabbagh; Arnaud Alves; Jean M Regimbeau; Timothée Vignaud; Aurélien Venara Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.379