Prehabilitation exercise therapy before abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Multimodal Prehabilitation for Patients Undergoing Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Surgery: A Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Elective treatment options for aortic abdominal aneurysms include open repair or the less-invasive endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Recovery from EVAR is generally considered easier and faster than open repair. Despite this, EVAR remains a major procedure, and average return to preoperative quality of life is at least 3 months. The purpose of this study is to determine the safety and feasibility of multimodal prehabilitation, a multidisciplinary preoperative optimization intervention, in patients undergoing EVAR and its impact on perioperative functional capacity and quality of life.

METHODS

Candidates for EVAR with an infra-renal abdominal aortic aneurysm <7.5cm were invited to participate in a 6-week multimodal prehabilitation program that included (1) supervised and home-based exercise, (2) nutritional support, (3) psychosocial support, and (4) smoking cessation. Functional capacity and quality of life were assessed at baseline, before surgery and 6 weeks postoperatively. Recruitment rate, safety, and compliance were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 24 patients were included, 17 males (70%) and 7 females (30%). No adverse events occurred during the program. Compliance to each component of the program (median [Q1-Q3]) was 66% [67] for supervised training, 100% [67] for home-based training, and 100% [100] for nutrition. The multimodal prehabilitation program elicited a significant increase in functional capacity and quality of life preoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Multimodal prehabilitation for patients awaiting EVAR is feasible and safe. Multimodal prehabilitation improves both functional capacity and quality of life preoperatively. Further research is needed to assess the impact of multimodal prehabilitation on postoperative quality of life and functional capacity.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Multimodal prehabilitation is safe and feasible in patients awaiting endovascular aneurysm repair. The importance of this finding is that multimodal prehabilitation can be safely delivered preoperatively in patients awaiting EVAR. Although further research is needed, multimodal prehabilitation seems to improve preoperative functional capacity and quality of life. This could have an impact for the future implementation of prehabilitation interventions in order to increase functional reserve and quality of life preoperatively so that this high-risk population can cope better with the surgical stress and return to their normal life faster postoperatively.

Impact of Preoperative Patient Education on Postoperative Recovery in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patient education is recommended as an essential component of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols. However, there are many uncertainties regarding content and methodological criteria, which may have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the intervention. The aim of this review is to assess the effect of preoperative patient education on postoperative recovery in abdominal surgery and to examine different patient education strategies for their effectiveness.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from 2011 to 2022. All studies investigating the effect of preoperative patient education on postoperative recovery in abdominal surgery were included. A critical quality assessment of all included studies was performed.

RESULTS

We identified 826 potentially suitable articles via a database search and included 12 studies in this review. The majority of the included studies reported a reduction in the length of hospital stay (LOS) and even a reduction in postoperative complications and adverse events. Patients with preoperative education seemed to have lower psychological stress and experience less anxiety. However, the contents, delivery, and general conditions were implemented differently, making comparison difficult. Moreover, the majority of the included studies were weak in quality.

CONCLUSION

With this review, we report potential effects, current implementations, and frameworks of patient education. However, the results must be interpreted with caution and are not directly transferable to clinical practice. Further studies in this field are necessary to make concrete recommendations for clinical practice.

Prehabilitation exercise therapy before elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal dilation in the diameter of the abdominal aorta of 50% or more of the normal diameter or greater than 3 cm in total. The risk of rupture increases with the diameter of the aneurysm, particularly above a diameter of approximately 5.5 cm. Perioperative and postoperative morbidity is common following elective repair in people with AAA. Prehabilitation or preoperative exercise is the process of enhancing an individual's functional capacity before surgery to improve postoperative outcomes. Studies have evaluated exercise interventions for people waiting for AAA repair, but the results of these studies are conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of exercise programmes on perioperative and postoperative morbidity and mortality associated with elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 6 July 2020. We also examined the included study reports' bibliographies to identify other relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining exercise interventions compared with usual care (no exercise; participants maintained normal physical activity) for people waiting for AAA repair.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed the included studies, extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and collected results related to the outcomes of interest: post-AAA repair mortality; perioperative and postoperative complications; length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay; length of hospital stay; number of days on a ventilator; change in aneurysm size pre- and post-exercise; and quality of life. We used GRADE to evaluate certainty of the evidence. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

This review identified four RCTs with a total of 232 participants with clinically diagnosed AAA deemed suitable for elective intervention, comparing prehabilitation exercise therapy with usual care (no exercise). The prehabilitation exercise therapy was supervised and hospital-based in three of the four included trials, and in the remaining trial the first session was supervised in hospital, but subsequent sessions were completed unsupervised in the participants' homes. The dose and schedule of the prehabilitation exercise therapy varied across the trials with three to six sessions per week and a duration of one hour per session for a period of one to six weeks. The types of exercise therapy included circuit training, moderate-intensity continuous exercise and high-intensity interval training. All trials were at a high risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence for each of our outcomes was low to very low. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of risk of bias and imprecision (small sample sizes). Overall, we are uncertain whether prehabilitation exercise compared to usual care (no exercise) reduces the occurrence of 30-day (or longer if reported) mortality post-AAA repair (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.77; 3 trials, 192 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to usual care (no exercise), prehabilitation exercise may decrease the occurrence of cardiac complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.92; 1 trial, 124 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the occurrence of renal complications (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.88; 1 trial, 124 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether prehabilitation exercise, compared to usual care (no exercise), decreases the occurrence of pulmonary complications (RR 0.49, 95% 0.26 to 0.92; 2 trials, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence), decreases the need for re-intervention (RR 1.29, 95% 0.33 to 4.96; 2 trials, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or decreases postoperative bleeding (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.80; 1 trial, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference between the exercise and usual care (no exercise) groups in length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay and quality of life. None of the studies reported data for the number of days on a ventilator and change in aneurysm size pre- and post-exercise outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether prehabilitation exercise therapy reduces 30-day mortality, pulmonary complications, need for re-intervention or postoperative bleeding. Prehabilitation exercise therapy might slightly reduce cardiac and renal complications compared with usual care (no exercise). More RCTs of high methodological quality, with large sample sizes and long-term follow-up, are needed. Important questions should include the type and cost-effectiveness of exercise programmes, the minimum number of sessions and programme duration needed to effect clinically important benefits, and which groups of participants and types of repair benefit most.