Lary A Robinson1, Tawee Tanvetyanon2, Deanna Grubbs2, Noah A Robinson2, Christine M Pierce3, Kevin McCarthy4, Rosemarie Garcia-Getting5, Sephalie Patel5. 1. Department of Thoracic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla. Electronic address: lary.robinson@moffitt.org. 2. Department of Thoracic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla. 3. Department of Cancer Epidemiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla. 4. Division of Financial Analytics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Because patients' preoperative nutritional status influences the outcomes, we have used a preoperative nutrition program for surgical patients for a 2-year period and compared the results with those from a cohort treated in the previous 2 years. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed curative thoracic neoplasm resections from July 15, 2016, to July 15, 2018, in patients who had received a preoperative nutritional-enhanced recovery after surgery (N-ERAS) protocol. The protocol consisted of 5 days of an oral immunonutrition drink 3 times daily, daily receipt of probiotics, and a carbohydrate-loading drink the night before surgery. The historical control cohort (standard group) included those patients who had undergone surgery by the same surgeon during the previous 24 months. We excluded patients who had undergone esophageal, diagnostic, benign, emergency, or palliative procedures. Nonparametric and parametric statistical tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The data from 462 patients were analyzed: 229 N-ERAS patients and 233 standard patients. No significant demographic or caseload differences were found between the 2 groups. The major significant outcome differences included fewer postoperative complications (30 [13.1%] in the N-ERAS group vs 60 [25.8%] in the standard group; P < .001) and shorter hospital stays (3.8 ± 1.9 days for the N-ERAS group vs 4.4 ± 2.6 days for the standard group; P = .001). Use of the N-ERAS protocol resulted in a 16% reduction ($2198; P < .001) in the mean direct hospital costs/patient. Consequently, for the N-ERAS cohort, the hospital was likely saved $503,342 during the 2-year period for the 229 patients just by using the N-ERAS protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic surgeons should consider using the nontoxic, patient-compliant N-ERAS protocol for their patients, with an expectation of improved clinical results at lower hospital costs-an important consideration when exploring methods to decrease costs because hospitals are increasingly being paid by a negotiated prospective bundled payment reimbursement model.
OBJECTIVES: Because patients' preoperative nutritional status influences the outcomes, we have used a preoperative nutrition program for surgical patients for a 2-year period and compared the results with those from a cohort treated in the previous 2 years. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed curative thoracic neoplasm resections from July 15, 2016, to July 15, 2018, in patients who had received a preoperative nutritional-enhanced recovery after surgery (N-ERAS) protocol. The protocol consisted of 5 days of an oral immunonutrition drink 3 times daily, daily receipt of probiotics, and a carbohydrate-loading drink the night before surgery. The historical control cohort (standard group) included those patients who had undergone surgery by the same surgeon during the previous 24 months. We excluded patients who had undergone esophageal, diagnostic, benign, emergency, or palliative procedures. Nonparametric and parametric statistical tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The data from 462 patients were analyzed: 229 N-ERASpatients and 233 standard patients. No significant demographic or caseload differences were found between the 2 groups. The major significant outcome differences included fewer postoperative complications (30 [13.1%] in the N-ERAS group vs 60 [25.8%] in the standard group; P < .001) and shorter hospital stays (3.8 ± 1.9 days for the N-ERAS group vs 4.4 ± 2.6 days for the standard group; P = .001). Use of the N-ERAS protocol resulted in a 16% reduction ($2198; P < .001) in the mean direct hospital costs/patient. Consequently, for the N-ERAS cohort, the hospital was likely saved $503,342 during the 2-year period for the 229 patients just by using the N-ERAS protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic surgeons should consider using the nontoxic, patient-compliant N-ERAS protocol for their patients, with an expectation of improved clinical results at lower hospital costs-an important consideration when exploring methods to decrease costs because hospitals are increasingly being paid by a negotiated prospective bundled payment reimbursement model.
Authors: Anastasia Jermihov; Athanasios Tsalatsanis; Shruti Kulkarni; Frank O Velez; Carla C Moodie; Joseph R Garrett; Jacques-Pierre Fontaine; Eric M Toloza Journal: JSLS Date: 2021 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 2.172