Prehabilitation versus no prehabilitation to improve functional capacity, reduce postoperative complications and improve quality of life in colorectal cancer surgery

Implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for colorectal cancer in a regional hospital network supported by audit and feedback: a stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are known to potentially improve the management and outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal surgery, with limited evidence of their implementation in hospital networks and in a large population. We aimed to assess the impact of the implementation of an ERAS protocol in colorectal cancer surgery in the entire region of Piemonte, Italy, supported by an audit and feedback (A&F) intervention.

METHODS

A large, stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial enrolled patients scheduled for elective surgery at 29 general surgery units (clusters). At baseline (first 3 months), standard care was continued in all units. Thereafter, four groups of clusters began to adopt the ERAS protocol successively. By the end of the study, each cluster had a period in which standard care was maintained (control) and a period in which the protocol was applied (experimental). ERAS implementation was supported by initial training and A&F initiatives. The primary endpoint was length of stay (LOS) without outliers (>94th percentile), and the secondary endpoints were outliers for LOS, postoperative medical and surgical complications, quality of recovery and compliance with ERAS items.

RESULTS

Of 2626 randomised patients, 2397 were included in the LOS analysis (1060 in the control period and 1337 in the experimental period). The mean LOS without outliers was 8.5 days during the control period (SD 3.9) and 7.5 (SD 3.5) during the experimental one. The adjusted difference between the two periods was a reduction of -0.58 days (95% CI -1.07, -0.09; p=0.021). The compliance with ERAS items increased from 52.4% to 67.3% (estimated absolute difference +13%; 95% CI 11.4%, 14.7%). No difference in the occurrence of complications was evidenced (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.89, 1.68).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the ERAS protocol for colorectal cancer, supported by A&F approach, led to a substantial improvement in compliance and a reduction in LOS, without meaningful effects on complications. Trial registration number NCT04037787.

Prehabilitation in Adults Undergoing Cancer Surgery: A Comprehensive Review on Rationale, Methodology, and Measures of Effectiveness

Cancer surgery places a significant burden on a patients' functional status and quality of life. In addition, cancer surgery is fraught with postoperative complications, themselves influenced by a patient's functional status. Prehabilitation is a unimodal or multimodal strategy that aims to increase a patient's functional capacity to reduce postoperative complications and improve postoperative recovery and quality of life. In most cases, it involves exercise, nutrition, and anxiety-reducing interventions. The impact of prehabilitation has been explored in several types of cancer surgery, most commonly colorectal and thoracic. Overall, the existing evidence suggests prehabilitation improves physiological outcomes (e.g., lean body mass, maximal oxygen consumption) as well as clinical outcomes (e.g., postoperative complications, quality of life). Notably, the benefit of prehabilitation is additional to that of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs. While safe, prehabilitation programs require multidisciplinary coordination preoperatively. Despite the existence of numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the certainty of evidence demonstrating the efficacy and safety of prehabilitation is low to moderate, principally due to significant methodological heterogeneity and small sample sizes. There is a need for more large-scale multicenter randomized controlled trials to draw strong clinical recommendations.

Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation of elderly frail or pre-frail patients prior to elective surgery (PRAEP-GO) versus usual care - Protocol for a health economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation aims to improve patients' functional capacity before surgery to reduce perioperative complications, promote recovery and decrease probability of disability. The planned economic evaluation is performed alongside a large German multi-centre pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, randomized controlled trial on prehabilitation for frail elderly patients before elective surgery compared to standard care (PRAEP-GO RCT). The aim is to determine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of prehabilitation for frail elderly before an elective surgery.

METHODS

The planned health economic evaluation comprises cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Analyses are conducted in the German context from different perspectives including the payer perspective, i.e. the statutory health insurance, the societal perspective and the health care provider perspective. Data on outcomes and costs, are collected alongside the ongoing PRAEP-GO RCT. The trial population includes frail or pre-frail patients aged ≥70 years with planned elective surgery. The intervention consists of frailty screening (Fried phenotype), a shared decision-making conference determining modality (physiotherapy and unsupervised physical exercises, nutrition counselling, etc.) and setting (inpatient, day care, outpatient etc.) of a 3-week individual multimodal prehabilitation prior to surgery. The control group receives standard preoperative care. Costs include the intervention costs, the costs of the index hospital stay for surgery, and health care resources consumed during a 12-month follow-up. Clinical effectiveness outcomes included in the economic evaluation are the level of care dependency, the degree of disability as measured by the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), quality-adjusted life years (QALY) derived from the EQ-5D-5L and the German utility set, and complications occurring during the index hospital stay. Each adopted perspective considers different types of costs and outcomes as outlined in the protocol. All analyses will feature Intention-To-Treat analysis. To explore methodological and parametric uncertainties, we will conduct probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses will be performed as secondary analyses.

DISCUSSION

The health economic evaluation will provide insights into the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation in older frail populations, informing decision-making processes and contributing to the evidence base in this field. Potential limitation includes a highly heterogeneous trial population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PRAEP-GO RCT: NCT04418271; economic evaluation: OSF ( https://osf.io/ecm74 ).

Clinical and economic burden of surgical complications during hospitalization for digestive cancer surgery in France

BACKGROUND

Surgical complications and particularly infections after digestive cancer surgery remain a major health and economic problem and its burden in France is not well documented.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to analyse recent data regarding surgical complications in patients undergoing major digestive cancer surgery, and to estimate its burden for the French society.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using the 2018 French hospital discharge database and 2017 National CostStudy we studied hospital stays for surgical resection in patients withdigestive cancer. The population was divided into three groups based onpostoperative outcomes: no complications (NC), related infectious complications (RIC) and other complications. The main analysis compared the length and cost per stay between RIC and NC. Forty-Four thousand one hundred and twenty-three stays following a digestive cancer resection were identified. Lower gastro-intestinal cancers were the most prevalent representing 74.8% of stays, the rate of malnutrition was 32.8% and 15.8% of patients presented RIC. Mean (SD) length of stay varied from 11,7 (9.0) days for NC to 25,5 days (19.5) for RIC (p < 0.01). The mean cost per patients' stay (SD) varied from €10 641 (€ 5897) for the NC to €18 720 (€7905) for RIC (p < .01).

CONCLUSION

The risk of RIC after digestive cancer resection remains high (>15%) and was associated with significantly longer length of stay and higher cost per stay. Although important prevention plans have been implemented in recent years, care strategies are still needed to alleviate the burden on patients and the healthcare system.

Recommendations on the use of prehabilitation, i.e. comprehensive preparation of the patient for surgery

Prehabilitation is a comprehensive preparation of a patient for primarily surgical treatments. Its aim is to improve the patient'sgeneral condition so as to reduce the risk of complications and ensure the fastest possible recovery to full health. Thebasic components of prehabilitation include: improvement of nutritional status, appropriate exercises to improve functioning,psychological support, and help in eliminating addictions. Other important aspects of prehabilitation are: increasinghemoglobin levels in patients with anemia, achieving good glycemic control in patients with diabetes, treatment or stabilizationof any concurrent disorders, or specialist treatment associated with a specific procedure (endoprostheses, ostomyprocedure). This article organizes and outlines the indications for prehabilitation, its scope, duration, and the method to conductit. Experts of various specialties related to prehabilitation agree that it should be an element of surgery preparationwhenever possible, especially in patients with co-existing medical conditions who have been qualified for major procedures.Prehabilitation should be carried out by interdisciplinary teams, including family physicians and various specialists in thetreatment of comorbidities. Prehabilitation requires urgent systemic and reimbursement solutions.

Transatmospheric ileal stoma manometry can be applied for the early detection of stoma outlet obstruction

Background

Stoma outlet obstruction (SOO) is a common complication of diverting ileostomy and usually detected at the advanced stage when the intestine is obviously obstructed. The objective of this study is to explore the efficacy of transatmospheric ileal stoma manometry (TISM) in early detection of SOO before the manifestation of intestinal obstruction.

Methods

A single-center prospective study was performed in patients scheduled to undergo reversal ileostomy and laparoscopic anterior rectal resection and diverting ileostomy in Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine from 1st July 2022 to 31st December 2022. The stoma pressure was measured by TISM at different time points.

Results

The mean stoma pressure of the 30 patients before reversal ileostomy was 5.21 cmH2O which was considered as normal standard of stoma pressure, and ranged from 1.2 to 8.56 cmH2O. After excluding two patients with anastomotic leakage, a total of 38 patients who were subjected to laparoscopic anterior rectal resection and diverting ileostomy were further included in this study. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was 5% and that of SOO was 12.5%. The mean postoperative obstruction time was 5.2 (3-7) days and the mean time from elevated stoma pressure to diagnosed as SOO was 2.8 (2-4) days in the five patients who developed SOO. The pressure measured at the third stoma manometry time point (second day after return of gut function) (10.23 vs. 6.04 cmH2O, p<0.001) and the postoperative hospital stay (10 vs. 8.49 days, p=0.028) showed significantly difference between the SOO and non-SOO groups. The pressures measured at the first time point (before return of gut function) (4 vs. 4.49 cmH2O, p=0.585), the second time point (the day of return of gut function) (6.8 vs. 5.62 cmH2O, p=0.123), and the fourth time point (discharge day) (5.88 vs. 5.9 cmH2O, p=0.933) showed no significant difference in both groups.

Conclusion

TISM can be utilized for early detection of SOO and can be incorporated as a novel diagnostic method together with abdominal CT scan to realize the goal of ERAS.

Prehabilitation versus no prehabilitation to improve functional capacity, reduce postoperative complications and improve quality of life in colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the cornerstone in curative treatment of colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, surgery itself can adversely affect patient health. 'Enhanced Recovery After Surgery' programmes, which include multimodal interventions, have improved patient outcomes substantially. However, these are mainly applied peri- and postoperatively. Multimodal prehabilitation includes multiple preoperative interventions to prepare patients for surgery with the aim of increasing resilience, thereby improving postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of multimodal prehabilitation programmes on functional capacity, postoperative complications, and quality of life in adult patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in January 2021. We also searched trial registries up to March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for surgery, comparing multimodal prehabilitation programmes (defined as comprising at least two preoperative interventions) with no prehabilitation. We focused on the following outcomes: functional capacity (i.e. 6-minute walk test, VO2peak, handgrip strength), postoperative outcomes (i.e. complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, re-admissions), health-related quality of life, compliance, safety of prehabilitation, and return to normal activities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Any disagreements were solved with discussion and consensus. We pooled data to perform meta-analyses, where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs that enrolled 250 participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for elective (mainly laparoscopic) surgery. Included trials were conducted in tertiary care centres and recruited patients during periods ranging from 17 months to 45 months. A total of 130 participants enrolled in a preoperative four-week trimodal prehabilitation programme consisting of exercise, nutritional intervention, and anxiety reduction techniques. Outcomes of these participants were compared to those of 120 participants who started an identical but postoperative programme. Postoperatively, prehabilitation may improve functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test at four and eight weeks (mean difference (MD) 26.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.81 to 65.85; 2 studies; n = 131; and MD 26.58, 95% CI -8.88 to 62.04; 2 studies; n = 140); however, the certainty of evidence is low and very low, respectively, due to serious risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. After prehabilitation, the functional capacity before surgery improved, with a clinically relevant mean difference of 24.91 metres (95% CI 11.24 to 38.57; 3 studies; n = 225). The certainty of evidence was moderate due to downgrading for serious risk of bias. The effects of prehabilitation on the number of complications (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29; 3 studies; n = 250), emergency department visits (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.32; 3 studies; n = 250) and re-admissions (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.65; 3 studies; n = 250) were small or even trivial. The certainty of evidence was low due to downgrading for serious risk of bias and imprecision. The effects on VO2peak, handgrip strength, length of hospital stay, mortality rate, health-related quality of life, return to normal activities, safety of the programme, and compliance rate could not be analysed quantitatively due to missing or insufficient data. The included studies did not report a difference between groups for health-related quality of life and length of hospital stay. Data on remaining outcomes were not reported or were reported inadequately in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation may result in an improved functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test both preoperatively and postoperatively. A solid effect on the number of omplications, postoperative emergency department visits and re-admissions could not be established. The certainty of evidence ranges from moderate to very low, due to downgrading for serious risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. In addition, only three heterogeneous studies were included in this review. Therefore, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Numerous relevant RCTs are ongoing and will be included in a future update of this review.