F Z Yang1, H Wang2, D S Wang1, Z J Niu1, S K Li3, J Zhang1, L Lü1, D Chen1, Y Li1, H T Jiang1, H D Han4, H C Chu4, S G Cao1, Y B Zhou1. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China. 2. Department of Gastrointestinal surgery, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, 264000, China. 3. Department of Emergency General Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China.
Abstract
Objective: To compare postoperative short-term outcomes and long-term prognosis between perioperative Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) and conventional pathways protocols in gastric cancer patients. Methods: This is a single institute retrospective cohort study, all patients were pathologically proved to be gastric adenocarcinoma, underwent standard radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy during the period of 2007-2012. Total 2124 cases were eligible to be analysed and divided into ERAS groups and Non-ERAS group according to the different perioperative pathway protocol. Propensity score matching method (in SPSS, 24.0 version, IBM Company) was used to balance the baseline characteristics. Two groups were matched in a 1∶1 ratio. There were 521 cases per group after matched. The short-term clinical outcomes (postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, blood loss, 30-day re-admission rate, etc.) and overall 5-year survival rates were compared between the two groups. Results: The incidence of overall postoperative complications was similar between the two groups (ERAS group=18.4%, non-ERAS group=19.4%, P=0.69), including anastomotic leakage, abdominal hemorrhage, etc. But the incidence of SSI, atelectasis, and thromboembolic disease in ERAS group was significant lower than that in Non-ERAS group. The number of lymph node harvested, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital and cost in ERAS group were better than those in non-ERAS group. There were no significant differences in unplanned reoperation (ERAS group=3.1%, non-ERAS group=2.1%, P=0.33), 30 day readmission rate of discharge (ERAS group=6.1%, non-ERAS group=5.6%, P=0.69) and postoperative mortality (ERAS group=0.4%, non-ERAS group=0.2%, P=0.56) between the two groups. The 5-year overall survival rates of non-ERAS group and ERAS group were 66.2% and 72.8% respectively (P=0.007). The subgroup analysis found that 5-year OS rates of stage I were 93.4% and 92.7% (P=0.73), these of stage Ⅱ and Ⅲ were 82.2% vs 75.2% (P=0.007) and 47.6% vs 35.7% (P=0.02) in ERAS group and non-ERAS group respectively. Conclusions: Perioperative ERAS pathway management is safe and feasible for patients with gastric cancer, without increasing the incidence of complications and 30-day readmission rate. This protocol can improve the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer.
Objective: To compare postoperative short-term outcomes and long-term prognosis between perioperative Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) and conventional pathways protocols in gastric cancerpatients. Methods: This is a single institute retrospective cohort study, all patients were pathologically proved to be gastric adenocarcinoma, underwent standard radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy during the period of 2007-2012. Total 2124 cases were eligible to be analysed and divided into ERAS groups and Non-ERAS group according to the different perioperative pathway protocol. Propensity score matching method (in SPSS, 24.0 version, IBM Company) was used to balance the baseline characteristics. Two groups were matched in a 1∶1 ratio. There were 521 cases per group after matched. The short-term clinical outcomes (postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, blood loss, 30-day re-admission rate, etc.) and overall 5-year survival rates were compared between the two groups. Results: The incidence of overall postoperative complications was similar between the two groups (ERAS group=18.4%, non-ERAS group=19.4%, P=0.69), including anastomotic leakage, abdominal hemorrhage, etc. But the incidence of SSI, atelectasis, and thromboembolic disease in ERAS group was significant lower than that in Non-ERAS group. The number of lymph node harvested, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital and cost in ERAS group were better than those in non-ERAS group. There were no significant differences in unplanned reoperation (ERAS group=3.1%, non-ERAS group=2.1%, P=0.33), 30 day readmission rate of discharge (ERAS group=6.1%, non-ERAS group=5.6%, P=0.69) and postoperative mortality (ERAS group=0.4%, non-ERAS group=0.2%, P=0.56) between the two groups. The 5-year overall survival rates of non-ERAS group and ERAS group were 66.2% and 72.8% respectively (P=0.007). The subgroup analysis found that 5-year OS rates of stage I were 93.4% and 92.7% (P=0.73), these of stage Ⅱ and Ⅲ were 82.2% vs 75.2% (P=0.007) and 47.6% vs 35.7% (P=0.02) in ERAS group and non-ERAS group respectively. Conclusions: Perioperative ERAS pathway management is safe and feasible for patients with gastric cancer, without increasing the incidence of complications and 30-day readmission rate. This protocol can improve the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical outcom; Enhanced Recovery After Surgery; Prognosis; Stomach, neoplasm
Authors: Y Zhang; G Ji; K Tao; H Liang; S Lei; X Zhong; X Wang; J Yu; C Chen; J Zhao; Q Zheng; Q Wang; Y Luo; Y Li; J Wang Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2021-12-20