Christine S M Lau1,2, Ronald S Chamberlain3,4,5,6. 1. Department of Surgery, Saint Barnabas Medical Center, 94 Old Short Hills Rd., Livingston, NJ, 07039, USA. 2. Saint George's University School of Medicine, St. George's, Grenada. 3. Department of Surgery, Saint Barnabas Medical Center, 94 Old Short Hills Rd., Livingston, NJ, 07039, USA. ronald.chamberlain@bannerhealth.com. 4. Saint George's University School of Medicine, St. George's, Grenada. ronald.chamberlain@bannerhealth.com. 5. Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, 2940 E. Banner Gateway Dr., Gilbert, AZ, 85234, USA. ronald.chamberlain@bannerhealth.com. 6. Department of Surgery, New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA. ronald.chamberlain@bannerhealth.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been developed to improve patient outcomes, accelerate recovery after surgery, and reduce healthcare costs. ERAS programs are a multimodal approach, with interventions during all stages of care. This meta-analysis examines the impact of ERAS programs on patient outcomes and recovery. METHODS: A comprehensive search of all published randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing the use of ERAS programs in surgical patients was conducted. Outcomes analyzed were length of stay (LOS), overall mortality, 30-day readmission rates, total costs, total complications, time to first flatus, and time to first bowel movement. RESULTS: Forty-two RCTs involving 5241 patients were analyzed. ERAS programs significantly reduced LOS, total complications, and total costs across all types of surgeries (p < 0.001). Return of gastrointestinal (GI) function was also significantly improved, as measured by earlier time to first flatus and time to first bowel movement, p < 0.001. There was no overall difference in mortality or 30-day readmission rates; however, 30-day readmission rates after upper GI surgeries nearly doubled with the use of ERAS programs (RR = 1.922; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: ERAS programs are associated with a significant reduction in LOS, total complications, total costs, as well as earlier return of GI function. Overall mortality and readmission rates remained similar, but there was a significant increase in 30-day readmission rates after upper GI surgeries. ERAS programs are effective and a valuable part in improving patient outcomes and accelerating recovery after surgery.
INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been developed to improve patient outcomes, accelerate recovery after surgery, and reduce healthcare costs. ERAS programs are a multimodal approach, with interventions during all stages of care. This meta-analysis examines the impact of ERAS programs on patient outcomes and recovery. METHODS: A comprehensive search of all published randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing the use of ERAS programs in surgical patients was conducted. Outcomes analyzed were length of stay (LOS), overall mortality, 30-day readmission rates, total costs, total complications, time to first flatus, and time to first bowel movement. RESULTS: Forty-two RCTs involving 5241 patients were analyzed. ERAS programs significantly reduced LOS, total complications, and total costs across all types of surgeries (p < 0.001). Return of gastrointestinal (GI) function was also significantly improved, as measured by earlier time to first flatus and time to first bowel movement, p < 0.001. There was no overall difference in mortality or 30-day readmission rates; however, 30-day readmission rates after upper GI surgeries nearly doubled with the use of ERAS programs (RR = 1.922; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: ERAS programs are associated with a significant reduction in LOS, total complications, total costs, as well as earlier return of GI function. Overall mortality and readmission rates remained similar, but there was a significant increase in 30-day readmission rates after upper GI surgeries. ERAS programs are effective and a valuable part in improving patient outcomes and accelerating recovery after surgery.
Authors: Alexander B Stone; Michael C Grant; Claro Pio Roda; Deborah Hobson; Timothy Pawlik; Christopher L Wu; Elizabeth C Wick Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: John Rose; Thomas G Weiser; Phil Hider; Leona Wilson; Russell L Gruen; Stephen W Bickler Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Jin Chen Hu; Li Xin Jiang; Li Cai; Hai Tao Zheng; San Yuan Hu; Hong Bing Chen; Guo Chang Wu; Yi Fei Zhang; Zhong Chuan Lv Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Rebecca K Marcus; Heather A Lillemoe; David C Rice; Gabriel Mena; Brian K Bednarski; Barbra B Speer; Pedro T Ramirez; Javier D Lasala; Neema Navai; Wendell H Williams; Bradford J Kim; Rachel K Voss; Vijaya N Gottumukkala; Thomas A Aloia Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Robert S Ackerman; Michael Hirschi; Brandon Alford; Trip Evans; John V Kiluk; Sephalie Y Patel Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Jeremy A Warren; Caroline Stoddard; Ahan L Hunter; Anthony J Horton; Carlyn Atwood; Joseph A Ewing; Steven Pusker; Vito A Cancellaro; Kevin B Walker; William S Cobb; Alfredo M Carbonell; Robert R Morgan Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Evan Stearns; Margaret A Plymale; Daniel L Davenport; Crystal Totten; Samuel P Carmichael; Charles S Tancula; John Scott Roth Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 4.584