Meng Zhang1, Hong Wang2, Xiaoyang Wang2, Luyao Zhang2, Cong Shen3, Caihua Tian1, Xiaoxia Xu4, Xiang Li1, Zongze Li5, Shao-Kai Zhang2, Bin-Bin Han6. 1. Department of Medical, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China. 2. Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China. 3. Information Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China. 4. Department of Nursing, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China. 5. Department of Finance, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China. 6. Hospital Office, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Abstract
Background: Esophageal cancer is a malignant tumor that seriously endangers human health. Compared with surgery alone, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely used in clinical practice because it can improve perioperative care, minimize complications, and accelerate the recovery of esophageal cancer patients. However, there is a lack of data supporting the cost-effectiveness of ERAS. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 968 esophageal cancer patients according to the pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Based on the Chinese expert consensus and guidelines, we improved the ERAS protocols consisting of 17 core measures. Subjects receiving >60% of the ERAS optimization measures were classified as the ERAS group, while those receiving <60% were classified as the pre-ERAS group. The demographic information, clinical and cost data of these patients were collected from the medical records. Based on the data distribution, the clinical effects and costs between the two groups were examined using the independent-sample t-test, the rank sum test, or the chi-square test. The effect of cost-effectiveness ratio calculation was measured by the disease cure rate obtained from the discharge report. Results: A total of 374 and 594 patients were included in the ERAS and pre-ERAS groups, respectively, and there were no significant differences in gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, tumor location, tumor stage, and other basic conditions between the two groups. The intraoperative blood loss, hospital stays, postoperative rehabilitation time, postoperative complications, and the number of secondary admissions within 30 days postoperatively of the ERAS group were lower than those of the pre-ERAS group (P<0.05). Compared with the pre-ERAS group, participants in the ERAS group had lower direct medical cost, direct non-medical cost, and indirect cost (P<0.05). Moreover, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the ERAS group (118,439.0 Yuan) was lower than that of the pre-ERAS group (143,369.0 Yuan) with respect to the cure rate. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that compared with pre-ERAS, the application of ERAS in esophageal cancer patients may accelerate postoperative rehabilitation, reduce the length of hospital stays and postoperative complications, and have better cost-effectiveness, highlighting the potential of ERAS to improve the quality of medical care. 2022 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Background: Esophageal cancer is a malignant tumor that seriously endangers human health. Compared with surgery alone, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely used in clinical practice because it can improve perioperative care, minimize complications, and accelerate the recovery of esophageal cancer patients. However, there is a lack of data supporting the cost-effectiveness of ERAS. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 968 esophageal cancer patients according to the pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Based on the Chinese expert consensus and guidelines, we improved the ERAS protocols consisting of 17 core measures. Subjects receiving >60% of the ERAS optimization measures were classified as the ERAS group, while those receiving <60% were classified as the pre-ERAS group. The demographic information, clinical and cost data of these patients were collected from the medical records. Based on the data distribution, the clinical effects and costs between the two groups were examined using the independent-sample t-test, the rank sum test, or the chi-square test. The effect of cost-effectiveness ratio calculation was measured by the disease cure rate obtained from the discharge report. Results: A total of 374 and 594 patients were included in the ERAS and pre-ERAS groups, respectively, and there were no significant differences in gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, tumor location, tumor stage, and other basic conditions between the two groups. The intraoperative blood loss, hospital stays, postoperative rehabilitation time, postoperative complications, and the number of secondary admissions within 30 days postoperatively of the ERAS group were lower than those of the pre-ERAS group (P<0.05). Compared with the pre-ERAS group, participants in the ERAS group had lower direct medical cost, direct non-medical cost, and indirect cost (P<0.05). Moreover, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the ERAS group (118,439.0 Yuan) was lower than that of the pre-ERAS group (143,369.0 Yuan) with respect to the cure rate. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that compared with pre-ERAS, the application of ERAS in esophageal cancer patients may accelerate postoperative rehabilitation, reduce the length of hospital stays and postoperative complications, and have better cost-effectiveness, highlighting the potential of ERAS to improve the quality of medical care. 2022 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
China; Esophageal cancer; cost-effectiveness; enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS); retrospective cohort study
Authors: Wolfgang Schroeder; Christoph Mallmann; Benjamin Babic; Christiane Bruns; Hans Friedrich Fuchs Journal: Zentralbl Chir Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 0.942
Authors: Andrew D Jung; Vikrom K Dhar; Richard S Hoehn; Sarah J Atkinson; Bobby L Johnson; Teresa Rice; Jonathan R Snyder; Janice F Rafferty; Michael J Edwards; Ian M Paquette Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: K Mortensen; M Nilsson; K Slim; M Schäfer; C Mariette; M Braga; F Carli; N Demartines; S M Griffin; K Lassen Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2014-07-21 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Alison P Klein; Brian M Wolpin; Harvey A Risch; Rachael Z Stolzenberg-Solomon; Evelina Mocci; Mingfeng Zhang; Federico Canzian; Erica J Childs; Jason W Hoskins; Ashley Jermusyk; Jun Zhong; Fei Chen; Demetrius Albanes; Gabriella Andreotti; Alan A Arslan; Ana Babic; William R Bamlet; Laura Beane-Freeman; Sonja I Berndt; Amanda Blackford; Michael Borges; Ayelet Borgida; Paige M Bracci; Lauren Brais; Paul Brennan; Hermann Brenner; Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Julie Buring; Daniele Campa; Gabriele Capurso; Giulia Martina Cavestro; Kari G Chaffee; Charles C Chung; Sean Cleary; Michelle Cotterchio; Frederike Dijk; Eric J Duell; Lenka Foretova; Charles Fuchs; Niccola Funel; Steven Gallinger; J Michael M Gaziano; Maria Gazouli; Graham G Giles; Edward Giovannucci; Michael Goggins; Gary E Goodman; Phyllis J Goodman; Thilo Hackert; Christopher Haiman; Patricia Hartge; Manal Hasan; Peter Hegyi; Kathy J Helzlsouer; Joseph Herman; Ivana Holcatova; Elizabeth A Holly; Robert Hoover; Rayjean J Hung; Eric J Jacobs; Krzysztof Jamroziak; Vladimir Janout; Rudolf Kaaks; Kay-Tee Khaw; Eric A Klein; Manolis Kogevinas; Charles Kooperberg; Matthew H Kulke; Juozas Kupcinskas; Robert J Kurtz; Daniel Laheru; Stefano Landi; Rita T Lawlor; I-Min Lee; Loic LeMarchand; Lingeng Lu; Núria Malats; Andrea Mambrini; Satu Mannisto; Roger L Milne; Beatrice Mohelníková-Duchoňová; Rachel E Neale; John P Neoptolemos; Ann L Oberg; Sara H Olson; Irene Orlow; Claudio Pasquali; Alpa V Patel; Ulrike Peters; Raffaele Pezzilli; Miquel Porta; Francisco X Real; Nathaniel Rothman; Ghislaine Scelo; Howard D Sesso; Gianluca Severi; Xiao-Ou Shu; Debra Silverman; Jill P Smith; Pavel Soucek; Malin Sund; Renata Talar-Wojnarowska; Francesca Tavano; Mark D Thornquist; Geoffrey S Tobias; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Yogesh Vashist; Kala Visvanathan; Pavel Vodicka; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Zhaoming Wang; Nicolas Wentzensen; Emily White; Herbert Yu; Kai Yu; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Wei Zheng; Peter Kraft; Donghui Li; Stephen Chanock; Ofure Obazee; Gloria M Petersen; Laufey T Amundadottir Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 14.919