Bradley White1, Fadi Dahdaleh2, Samer A Naffouje3, Neerav Kothari4, Jessica Berg2, Wendy Wiemann2, George I Salti5,6. 1. Department of General Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, The University of Illinois at Chicago, 840 South Wood Street, M/C 820, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Edward-Elmhurst Health, Naperville, IL, USA. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 4. Department of Anesthesia, University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Department of General Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, The University of Illinois at Chicago, 840 South Wood Street, M/C 820, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. geosalti@uic.edu. 6. Department of Surgical Oncology, Edward-Elmhurst Health, Naperville, IL, USA. geosalti@uic.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have been associated with significant morbidity and increased hospital length of stay (LOS). The authors report their experience after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for CRS-HIPEC. METHODS: Outcomes were analyzed before and after ERAS implementation. The components of ERAS included preoperative carbohydrate loading, goal-directed fluid management, multimodal pain management, minimization of narcotic use, avoidance of nasogastric tubes, and early mobilization and feeding. RESULTS: Of 168 procedures, 88 (52%) were in the pre-ERAS group and 80 (48%) were in the post-ERAS group. The two groups did not differ in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, peritoneal carcinomatosis index scores, completeness of cytoreduction, or operative time. The ERAS patients received fewer fluids intraoperatively (mean, 4.2 vs 6.4 L; p < 0.01). The mean LOS was 7.9 days post-ERAS compared with 10.0 days pre-ERAS (p = 0.015). Clavien-Dindo complications classified as grade ≥ 3 were lower after ERAS (23.7% vs 38.6%; p = 0.04). Moreover, the readmission rates remained the same (16.2% vs 13.6%; p = 0.635). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ERAS program for patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC is feasible and not associated with an increase in overall major complications or readmissions. These data support incorporation of ERAS protocols for CRS-HIPEC procedures.
BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have been associated with significant morbidity and increased hospital length of stay (LOS). The authors report their experience after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for CRS-HIPEC. METHODS: Outcomes were analyzed before and after ERAS implementation. The components of ERAS included preoperative carbohydrate loading, goal-directed fluid management, multimodal pain management, minimization of narcotic use, avoidance of nasogastric tubes, and early mobilization and feeding. RESULTS: Of 168 procedures, 88 (52%) were in the pre-ERAS group and 80 (48%) were in the post-ERAS group. The two groups did not differ in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, peritoneal carcinomatosis index scores, completeness of cytoreduction, or operative time. The ERAS patients received fewer fluids intraoperatively (mean, 4.2 vs 6.4 L; p < 0.01). The mean LOS was 7.9 days post-ERAS compared with 10.0 days pre-ERAS (p = 0.015). Clavien-Dindo complications classified as grade ≥ 3 were lower after ERAS (23.7% vs 38.6%; p = 0.04). Moreover, the readmission rates remained the same (16.2% vs 13.6%; p = 0.635). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ERAS program for patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC is feasible and not associated with an increase in overall major complications or readmissions. These data support incorporation of ERAS protocols for CRS-HIPEC procedures.
Authors: Jennifer Tseng; Darren S Bryan; Elizabeth Poli; Manish Sharma; Blase N Polite; Kiran K Turaga Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Tristan D Yan; Marcello Deraco; Dario Baratti; Shigeki Kusamura; Dominique Elias; Olivier Glehen; François N Gilly; Edward A Levine; Perry Shen; Faheez Mohamed; Brendan J Moran; David L Morris; Terence C Chua; Pompiliu Piso; Paul H Sugarbaker Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Willemien J van Driel; Simone N Koole; Karolina Sikorska; Jules H Schagen van Leeuwen; Henk W R Schreuder; Ralph H M Hermans; Ignace H J T de Hingh; Jacobus van der Velden; Henriëtte J Arts; Leon F A G Massuger; Arend G J Aalbers; Victor J Verwaal; Jacobien M Kieffer; Koen K Van de Vijver; Harm van Tinteren; Neil K Aaronson; Gabe S Sonke Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Patrick B Schwartz; Christopher C Stahl; Roberto J Vidri; Glen E Leverson; Yana Puckett; Syed N Zafar; Patrick Varley; Sean M Ronnekleiv-Kelly; Ahmed Al-Niaimi; Sharon M Weber; Daniel E Abbott Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Job P van Kooten; Nadine L de Boer; Marjolein Diepeveen; Cornelis Verhoef; Jacobus W A Burger; Alexandra R M Brandt-Kerkhof; Eva V E Madsen Journal: Pleura Peritoneum Date: 2021-03-24