Perioperative enhanced recovery programmes for gynaecological cancer patients

Enhanced Recovery Pathways in Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology

IMPORTANCE

Enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) are considered standard of care across a variety of surgical disciplines, but ERPs have not been widely adopted in gynecology.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe ERP principles and the role of ERPs in gynecology and gynecologic oncology.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Database, and PubMed.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses of a substantial number of randomized controlled trials have shown that implementation of ERP protocols is associated with decreased length of hospital stay, a decrease in rates of postoperative complication, decreased morbidity, and cost savings while preserving patient satisfaction and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

High-quality evidence exists for improved outcomes among patients in ERPs. Enhanced recovery programs save resources and costs across the health care system. As quality metrics and bundled payments increase in health care, ERPs will have increasing prominence.

A call for new standard of care in perioperative gynecologic oncology practice: Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs aim to hasten functional recovery and improve postoperative outcomes. However, there is a paucity of data on ERAS programs in gynecologic surgery. We reviewed the published literature on ERAS programs in colorectal surgery, general gynecologic surgery, and gynecologic oncology surgery to evaluate the impact of such programs on outcomes, and to identify key elements in establishing a successful ERAS program. ERAS programs are associated with shorter length of hospital stay, a reduction in overall health care costs, and improvements in patient satisfaction. We suggest an ERAS program for gynecologic oncology practice involving preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative strategies including; preadmission counseling, avoidance of preoperative bowel preparation, use of opioid-sparing multimodal perioperative analgesia (including loco-regional analgesia), intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy (GDT), and use of minimally invasive surgical techniques with avoidance of routine use of nasogastric tube, drains and/or catheters. Postoperatively, it is important to encourage early feeding, early mobilization, timely removal of tubes and drains, if present, and function oriented multimodal analgesia regimens. Successful implementation of an ERAS program requires a multidisciplinary team effort and active participation of the patient in their goal-oriented functional recovery program. However, future outcome studies should evaluate the efficacy of an intervention within the pathway, include objective measures of symptom burden and control, study measures of functional recovery, and quantify outcomes of the program in relation to the rates of adherence to the key elements of care in gynecologic oncology such as oncologic outcomes and return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT).

Enhanced recovery programme in gynaecology: outcomes of a hysterectomy care pathway

There was a wide variation in the peri-operative management of women undergoing hysterectomy for both benign and malignant disease at Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust prior to 2010. The median length of stay following a hysterectomy and more radical gynaecological oncology surgery was five days and seven days respectively. The NHS East of England Strategic Health Authority commissioned the development of Enhanced Recovery Programme (ERP) in various surgical specialties including gynaecology and the pathway was implemented from 2012 onward. Dedicated specialist nurses collected data prospectively. The median length of stay was shortened to three days. This difference was statistically significant with a P value = 0.0001. We describe the successful implementation of an ERP in Southend Hospital resulting with no difference in measurable morbidity and mortality, a shorter length of stay, and a high patient satisfaction scores and outcomes.

Effectiveness and implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery programmes: a rapid evidence synthesis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence on the impact of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing elective surgery in acute hospital settings in the UK.

DESIGN

Rapid evidence synthesis. Eight databases were searched from 1990 to March 2013 without language restrictions. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. Systematic reviews, RCTs not included in the systematic reviews, economic evaluations and UK NHS cost analysis, implementation case studies and surveys of patient experience in a UK setting were eligible for inclusion.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We assessed the impact of enhanced recovery programmes on health or cost-related outcomes, and assessed implementation case studies and patient experience in UK settings. Studies were quality assessed where appropriate using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects critical appraisal process.

RESULTS

17 systematic reviews and 12 additional RCTs were included. Ten relevant economic evaluations were included. No cost analysis studies were identified. Most of the evidence focused on colorectal surgery. 14 innovation case studies and 15 implementation case studies undertaken in National Health Service settings described factors critical to the success of an enhanced recovery programme. Evidence for colorectal surgery suggests that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce hospital stays by 0.5-3.5 days compared with conventional care. There were no significant differences in reported readmission rates. Other surgical specialties showed greater variation in reductions in length of stay reflecting the limited evidence identified. Findings relating to other outcomes were hampered by a lack of robust evidence and poor reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

There is consistent, albeit limited, evidence that enhanced recovery programmes can reduce length of patient hospital stay without increasing readmission rates. The extent to which managers and clinicians considering implementing enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings can realise savings will depend on length of stay achieved under their existing care pathway.