Literature DB >> 30701367

Does adherence to perioperative enhanced recovery pathway elements influence patient-reported recovery following colorectal resection?

Nicolò Pecorelli1,2, Saba Balvardi1, A Sender Liberman3, Patrick Charlebois3, Barry Stein3, Franco Carli4, Liane S Feldman1,3, Julio F Fiore5,6.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are pivotal to promote patient-centered perioperative care. Adherence to enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) is associated with improved clinical outcomes (i.e., morbidity, length of stay), but the impact of adherence on PROMs is uncertain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent to which adherence to an ERP for colorectal surgery is associated with postoperative recovery as assessed using PROMs. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: 100 patients were included [median age 63 (IQR 50-71) years, 81 laparoscopic, 37 rectal surgery]. Overall adherence to the ERP and adherence to specific ERP elements were analyzed. Adjusted linear regression was used to evaluate the association of adherence with PROMs assessing early recovery [Abdominal surgery impact scale (ASIS) and Multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI) on POD2] and late recovery (Duke Activity Status Index, RAND-36 Physical and Mental Summary Scores, Life-Space Mobility Assessment at 4 weeks after surgery). Missing data were addressed using multiple imputations.
RESULTS: Median adherence to the ERP was 80% (16/20 elements, IQR 70-90%). Overall adherence was associated with ASIS scores on POD2 (4% increase per additional element, 95% CI 1-8%; p = 0.018). When specific ERP elements were analyzed, ASIS scores were associated with adherence to PONV prophylaxis (34% increase, 95% CI 5-63%; p = 0.023) and early solid food diet (20% increase, 95% CI 5-35%; p = 0.009). MFI General fatigue and MFI Mental fatigue scores on POD2 were associated with adherence to PONV prophylaxis (36% decrease, 95% CI - 64 to - 8%, p = 0.014 and 22% decrease, 95% CI - 44 to - 8%, p = 0.042). Overall adherence and adherence to specific elements were not associated with PROMs at 4 weeks after surgery.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that, from the perspective of patients, adherence to an ERP for colorectal surgery impacts early, but not late postoperative recovery. This result may reflect the lack of PROMs able to validly measure postoperative recovery beyond hospital discharge.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colorectal surgery; Enhanced recovery; Outcome and process assessment (Health Care); Patient-reported outcome measures; Postoperative recovery

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30701367     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-06684-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  37 in total

Review 1.  What does it really mean to "recover" from an operation?

Authors:  Lawrence Lee; Tung Tran; Nancy E Mayo; Franco Carli; Liane S Feldman
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2013-10-12       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 2.  Systematic Review of Quality of Life following Laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery.

Authors:  H M Dowson; A S Cowie; K Ballard; H Gage; T A Rockall
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.788

3.  Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G): non-response to individual questions.

Authors:  D L Fairclough; D F Cella
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  What outcomes are important in the assessment of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways?

Authors:  Liane S Feldman; Lawrence Lee; Julio Fiore
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 5.063

5.  Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(®)) Society recommendations.

Authors:  U O Gustafsson; M J Scott; W Schwenk; N Demartines; D Roulin; N Francis; C E McNaught; J Macfie; A S Liberman; M Soop; A Hill; R H Kennedy; D N Lobo; K Fearon; O Ljungqvist
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  A measure of quality of life after abdominal surgery.

Authors:  David R Urbach; Julie L Harnish; Jodi Herold McIlroy; David L Streiner
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale (ASIS) is responsive in assessing outcome following IPAA.

Authors:  Indraneel Datta; Brenda O'Connor; J Charles Victor; David R Urbach; Robin S McLeod
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-01-16       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 8.  Systematic review of outcomes used to evaluate enhanced recovery after surgery.

Authors:  A Neville; L Lee; I Antonescu; N E Mayo; M C Vassiliou; G M Fried; L S Feldman
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  Fast-track surgery in real life: how patient factors influence outcomes and compliance with an enhanced recovery clinical pathway after colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Francesco Feroci; Elisa Lenzi; Maddalena Baraghini; Alessia Garzi; Andrea Vannucchi; Stefano Cantafio; Marco Scatizzi
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 1.719

10.  The impact of postoperative complications on long-term quality of life after curative colorectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Sarah R Brown; Ronnie Mathew; Ada Keding; Helen C Marshall; Julia M Brown; David G Jayne
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 12.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.