ERAS program adherence-institutionalization, major morbidity and anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery: the iCral2 multicenter prospective study

Bowel preparation before elective right colectomy: Multitreatment machine-learning analysis on 2,617 patients

BACKGROUND

In the worldwide, real-life setting, some candidates for right colectomy still receive no bowel preparation, some receive oral antibiotics alone, some receive mechanical bowel preparation alone, and some receive mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, with varying degrees of compliance to preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Previous studies mainly focused on left-sided colorectal anastomoses while less attention has been devoted to right-sided ileocolic anastomoses. When high-level evidence from randomized clinical trials is lacking, multiple-treatment propensity score weighting analysis of prospective data on the basis of generalized boosted model is superior to a simple propensity score-matching analysis and to an inverse probability weighting in terms of external validity and bias reduction.

METHODS

This is an analysis on the basis of machine-learning procedures of 2,617 patients who underwent elective right colectomies.

RESULTS

The risk of surgical-site infections (5.0% after no bowel preparation) was significantly lower after mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics (4.0%, P = .017), significantly greater after mechanical bowel preparation alone (8.6%, P = .019), and comparable after oral antibiotics alone (3.9%). The risk of anastomotic leakage (3.2% after no bowel preparation) was significantly greater after oral antibiotics alone (4.8%, P = .013). Concerning secondary outcomes, no significant differences were recorded for the risk of overall morbidity and reoperation. The risk of readmission (3.0% after no bowel preparation) was significantly reduced after mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics (1.5%, P = .046), and the risk of major morbidity (5.1% after no bowel preparation) was significantly greater after oral antibiotics alone (6.7%, P = .007).

CONCLUSION

This multitreatment machine-learning analysis, despite some limitations, showed that mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics is associated with a decrease in surgical-site infections after elective right colectomy compared with no bowel preparation.

Intraoperative left-sided colorectal anastomotic testing in clinical practice: a multi-treatment machine-learning analysis of the iCral3 prospective cohort

BACKGROUND

Current evidence about intraoperative anastomotic testing after left-sided colorectal resections is still controversial. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of Indocyanine Green fluorescent angiography (ICG-FA) and air-leak test (ALT) over standard assessment on anastomotic leakage (AL) rates according to surgeon's perception of anastomosis perfusion and/or integrity in clinical practice.

METHODS

A database of 2061 patients who underwent left-sided colorectal resections was selected from patients enrolled in a prospective multicenter study. It was retrospectively analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering standard visual assessment (NW; No. = 899; 43.6%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to ICG-FA alone (WP; No. = 409; 19.8%), ALT alone (WI; No. = 420; 20.4%) or both (WPI; No. = 333; 16.2%). Twenty-four covariates potentially affecting the outcomes were included and balanced into the model within the subgroups. The primary endpoint was AL, the secondary endpoints were overall morbidity (OM), major morbidity (MM), reoperation for AL, and mortality. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).

RESULTS

The WPI subgroup showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.02-3.59; p 0.043), MM risk (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.39-3.97; p 0.001), and reoperation for AL risk (OR 2.44; 95% CI 1.12-5.31; p 0.025). No other significant differences were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the surgeons' perception of both anastomotic perfusion and integrity (WPI subgroup) was associated to a significantly higher risk of AL and related morbidity, notwithstanding the extensive use of both ICG-FA and ALT testing.

Feasibility and usefulness of postoperative mobilization goals in the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) clinical pathway for elective colorectal surgery

PURPOSE

Despite mobilization is highly recommended in the ERAS® colorectal guideline, studies suggest that more than half of patients don't reach the daily goal of 360 min out of bed. However, data used to quantify mobilization are predominantly based on self-assessments, for which the accuracy is uncertain. This study aims to accurately measure postoperative mobilization in ERAS®-patients by validated motion data from body sensors.

METHODS

ERAS®-patients with elective bowel resections were eligible. Self-assessments and motion sensors (movisens: ECG-Move 4 and Move 4; Garmin: Vivosmart4) were used to record mobilization parameter from surgery to postoperative day 3 (POD3): Time out of bed, time on feet and step count.

RESULTS

97 patients were screened and 60 included for study participation. Self-assessment showed a median out of bed duration of 215 min/day (POD1: 135 min, POD2: 225 min, POD3: 225 min). The goal of 360 min was achieved by 16.67% at POD1, 21.28% at POD2 and 20.45% at POD3. Median time on feet objectively measured by Move 4 was 109 min/day. During self-assessment, patients significantly underestimated their "time on feet"-duration with 85 min/day (p = 0.008). Median number of steps was 933/day (Move 4).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed with objectively supported data, that most patients don't reach the daily mobilization goal of 360 min despite being treated by an ERAS®-pathway with ERAS®-nurse. Even considering an empirically approximated underestimation, the ERAS®-target isn't achieved by more than 75% of patients. Therefore, we propose an adjustment of the general ERAS®-goals into more patient-centered, individualized and achievable goals.

REGISTRATION

This study is part of the MINT-ERAS-project and was registered prospectively in the German Clinical Trials Register on 25.02.2022. Trial registration number is "DRKS00027863".

Gastrointestinal functions after laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a pilot randomized clinical trial on effects of abdominal drain, prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis, and D3 lymphadenectomy with complete mesocolic excision

PURPOSE

Routine use of abdominal drain or prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is no longer part of current clinical practice in colorectal surgery. Nevertheless, in patients undergoing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA), it may reduce perioperative abdominal contamination. Furthermore, in cancer patients, prolonged surgery with extensive dissection such as central vascular ligation and complete mesocolon excision with D3 lymphadenectomy (altogether radical right colectomy RRC) is called responsible for affecting postoperative ileus. The aim was to evaluate postoperative resumption of gastrointestinal functions in patients undergoing right hemicolectomy for cancer with ICA and standard D2 dissection or RRC, with or without abdominal drain and prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis.

METHODS

Monocentric factorial parallel arm randomized pilot trial including all consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy and ICA for cancer, in 20 months. Patients were randomized on a 1:1:1 ratio to receive abdominal drain, prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis or neither (I level), and 1:1 to receive RRC or D2 colectomy (II level). Patients were not blinded. The primary aim was the resumption of gastrointestinal functions (time to first gas and stool, time to tolerated fluids and food). Secondary aims were length of stay and complications' rate.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov no. NCT04977882.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients were screened; according to sample size, 36 were randomized, 12 for each arm for postoperative management, and 18 for each arm according to surgical techniques. A difference in time to solid diet favored the group without drain or antibiotic independently from standard or RRC. Furthermore, when patients were divided with respect to surgical technique and into matched cohorts, no differences were seen for primary and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal drainage and prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing right hemicolectomy for cancer with ICA seem to negatively affect the resumption of a solid diet after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with ICA for cancer. RRC does not seem to influence gastrointestinal function recovery.

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort

BACKGROUND

Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation.

METHODS

A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.

Oral Antibiotics Alone versus Oral Antibiotics Combined with Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matching Re-Analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 Prospective Cohorts

The evidence regarding the role of oral antibiotics alone (oA) or combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MoABP) for elective colorectal surgery remains controversial. A prospective database of 8359 colorectal resections gathered over a 32-month period from 78 Italian surgical units (the iCral 2 and 3 studies), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables together with 60-day adverse events, was re-analyzed to identify a subgroup of 1013 cases (12.1%) that received either oA or MoABP. This dataset was analyzed using a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 243 patients each were obtained: group A (oA) and group B (MoABP). The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) rates. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher AL risk [14 (5.8%) vs. 6 (2.5%) events; OR: 3.77; 95%CI: 1.22-11.67; p = 0.021], while no significant difference was recorded between the two groups regarding SSIs. These results strongly support the use of MoABP for elective colorectal resections.

Mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis of the Italian colorectal anastomotic leakage (iCral) study group prospective cohorts

Retrospective evaluation of the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on data derived from two prospective open-label observational multicenter studies in Italy regarding elective colorectal surgery. MBP for elective colorectal surgery remains a controversial issue with contrasting recommendations in current guidelines. The Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage (iCral) study group, therefore, decided to estimate the effects of no MBP (treatment variable) versus MBP for elective colorectal surgery. A total of 8359 patients who underwent colorectal resection with anastomosis were enrolled in two consecutive prospective studies in 78 surgical centers in Italy from January 2019 to September 2021. A retrospective PSMA was performed on 5455 (65.3%) cases after the application of explicit exclusion criteria to eliminate confounders. The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infections (SSI) rates; the secondary endpoints included SSI subgroups, overall and major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates. Overall length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was also considered. Two well-balanced groups of 1125 patients each were generated: group A (No MBP, true population of interest), and group B (MBP, control population), performing a PSMA considering 21 covariates. Group A vs. group B resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of AL [42 (3.5%) vs. 73 (6.0%) events; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.84; p = 0.005]. No difference was recorded between the two groups for SSI [73 (6.0%) vs. 85 (7.0%) events; OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63-1.22; p = 0.441]. Regarding the secondary endpoints, no MBP resulted significantly associated with a lower risk of reoperation and LOS > 6 days. This study confirms that no MBP before elective colorectal surgery is significantly associated with a lower risk of AL, reoperation rate, and LOS < 6 days when compared with MBP.

Three-row versus two-row circular staplers for left-sided colorectal anastomosis: a propensity score-matched analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 prospective cohorts

BACKGROUND

Since most anastomoses after left-sided colorectal resections are performed with a circular stapler, any technological change in stapling devices may influence the incidence of anastomotic adverse events. The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of a three-row circular stapler on anastomotic leakage and related morbidity after left-sided colorectal resections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A circular stapled anastomosis was performed in 4255 (50.9%) out of 8359 patients enrolled in two prospective multicenter studies in Italy, and, after exclusion criteria to reduce heterogeneity, 2799 (65.8%) cases were retrospectively analyzed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates relative to patient characteristics, to surgery and to perioperative management. Two well-balanced groups of 425 patients each were obtained: group (A) - true population of interest, anastomosis performed with a three-row circular stapler; group (B) - control population, anastomosis performed with a two-row circular stapler. The target of inferences was the average treatment effect in the treated (ATT). The primary endpoints were overall and major anastomotic leakage and overall anastomotic bleeding; the secondary endpoints were overall and major morbidity and mortality rates. The results of multiple logistic regression analyses for the outcomes, including the 20 covariates selected for matching, were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Group A versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of overall anastomotic leakage (2.1 vs. 6.1%; OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.15-0.73; P =0.006), major anastomotic leakage (2.1 vs. 5.2%; OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.17-0.87; P =0.022), and major morbidity (3.5 vs. 6.6% events; OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24-0.91; P =0.026).

CONCLUSION

The use of three-row circular staplers independently reduced the risk of anastomotic leakage and related morbidity after left-sided colorectal resection. Twenty-five patients were required to avoid one leakage.

Guidelines on perioperative optimization protocol for the adult patient 2023

OBJECTIVE

The French Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine [Société Française d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation (SFAR)] aimed at providing guidelines for the implementation of perioperative optimization programs.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 29 experts from the SFAR was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the outset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence.

METHODS

Four fields were defined: 1) Generalities on perioperative optimization programs; 2) Preoperative measures; 3) Intraoperative measures and; 4) Postoperative measures. For each field, the objective of the recommendations was to answer a number of questions formulated according to the PICO model (population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). Based on these questions, an extensive bibliographic search was carried out using predefined keywords according to PRISMA guidelines and analyzed using the GRADE® methodology. The recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE® methodology and then voted on by all the experts according to the GRADE grid method. As the GRADE® methodology could have been fully applied for the vast majority of questions, the recommendations were formulated using a "formalized expert recommendations" format.

RESULTS

The experts' work on synthesis and application of the GRADE® method resulted in 30 recommendations. Among the formalized recommendations, 19 were found to have a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) and ten a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±). For one recommendation, the GRADE methodology could not be fully applied, resulting in an expert opinion. Two questions did not find any response in the literature. After two rounds of rating and several amendments, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement among the experts was obtained to provide 30 recommendations for the elaboration and/or implementation of perioperative optimization programs in the highest number of surgical fields.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Return to Intended Oncologic Therapy After Colorectal Enhanced Recovery Pathway

Objective:

To evaluate the influence of enhanced recovery pathway (ERP) on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT) after colorectal surgery.

Background:

ERP improves early outcomes after colorectal surgery; however, little is known about its influence on PROMs and on RIOT.

Methods:

Prospective multicenter enrollment of patients who underwent colorectal resection with anastomosis was performed, recording variables related to patient-, institution-, procedure-level data, adherence to the ERP, and outcomes. The primary endpoints were PROMs (administered before surgery, at discharge, and 6 to 8 weeks after surgery) and RIOT after surgery for malignancy, defined as the intended oncologic treatment according to national guidelines and disease stage, administered within 8 weeks from the index operation, evaluated through multivariate regression models.

Results:

The study included 4529 patients, analyzed for PROMs, 1467 of which were analyzed for RIOT. Compared to their baseline preoperative values, all PROMs showed significant worsening at discharge and improvement at late evaluation. PROMs values at discharge and 6 to 8 weeks after surgery, adjusted through a generalized mixed regression model according to preoperative status and other variables, showed no association with ERP adherence rates. RIOT rates (overall 54.5%) were independently lower by aged > 69 years, ASA Class III, open surgery, and presence of major morbidity; conversely, they were independently higher after surgery performed in an institutional ERP center and by ERP adherence rates > median (69.2%).

Conclusions:

Adherence to the ERP had no effect on PROMs, whereas it independently influenced RIOT rates after surgery for colorectal cancer.

In this prospective multicenter study performed on 4529 patients who underwent colorectal resection, adherence to an enhanced recovery pathway showed no effect on patient-reported outcomes but independently influenced the return to intended oncologic therapy.

Blood Transfusions and Adverse Events after Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis of a Hen-Egg Issue

Blood transfusions are considered a risk factor for adverse outcomes after colorectal surgery. However, it is still unclear if they are the cause (the hen) or the consequence (the egg) of adverse events. A prospective database of 4529 colorectal resections gathered over a 12-month period in 76 Italian surgical units (the iCral3 study), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables, together with 60-day adverse events, was retrospectively analyzed identifying a subgroup of 304 cases (6.7%) that received intra- and/or postoperative blood transfusions (IPBTs). The endpoints considered were overall and major morbidity (OM and MM, respectively), anastomotic leakage (AL), and mortality (M) rates. After the exclusion of 336 patients who underwent neo-adjuvant treatments, 4193 (92.6%) cases were analyzed through a 1:1 propensity score matching model including 22 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 275 patients each were obtained: group A, presence of IPBT, and group B, absence of IPBT. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher risk of overall morbidity (154 (56%) vs. 84 (31%) events; OR 3.07; 95%CI 2.13-4.43; p = 0.001), major morbidity (59 (21%) vs. 13 (4.7%) events; OR 6.06; 95%CI 3.17-11.6; p = 0.001), and anastomotic leakage (31 (11.3%) vs. 8 (2.9%) events; OR 4.72; 95%CI 2.09-10.66; p = 0.0002). No significant difference was recorded between the two groups concerning the risk of mortality. The original subpopulation of 304 patients that received IPBT was further analyzed considering three variables: appropriateness of BT according to liberal transfusion thresholds, BT following any hemorrhagic and/or major adverse event, and major adverse event following BT without any previous hemorrhagic adverse event. Inappropriate BT was administered in more than a quarter of cases, without any significant influence on any endpoint. The majority of BT was administered after a hemorrhagic or a major adverse event, with significantly higher rates of MM and AL. Finally, a major adverse event followed BT in a minority (4.3%) of cases, with significantly higher MM, AL, and M rates. In conclusion, although the majority of IPBT was administered with the consequence of hemorrhage and/or major adverse events (the egg), after adjustment accounting for 22 covariates, IPBT still resulted in a definite source of a higher risk of major morbidity and anastomotic leakage rates after colorectal surgery (the hen), calling urgent attention to the implementation of patient blood management programs.

Enhanced recovery pathway in open and minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective study on feasibility, compliance, and outcomes in a high-volume resource limited tertiary cancer center

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery program (ERP) has demonstrated improved postoperative outcomes with increased compliance to pathway. However, there is scarce data on feasibility and safety in resource limited setting. The objective was to assess compliance with ERP and its impact on postoperative outcomes and return to intended oncological treatment (RIOT).

METHODS

A single center prospective observational audit was conducted from 2014 to 2019, in elective colorectal cancer surgery. Before implementation, multi-disciplinary team was educated regarding ERP. Compliance to ERP protocol and its elements was recorded. Impact of quantum of compliance (≥80% vs. <80%) to ERP on postoperative morbidity, mortality, readmission, stay, re-exploration, functional GI recovery, surgical-specific complications, and RIOT was evaluated for open and minimal invasive surgery (MIS).

RESULTS

During study, 937 patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery. Overall compliance with ERP was 73.3%. More than 80% compliance was observed in 332 (35.4%) patients in the entire cohort. Patients with <80% compliance had significantly higher overall, minor and surgery-specific complications, longer postoperative stay, delayed functional GI recovery for both open and MIS procedures. RIOT was observed in 96.5% patients. Duration to RIOT was significantly shorter following open surgery with ≥80% compliance. Compliance <80% to ERP was identified as one of the independent predictors for developing postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates beneficial impact of increased compliance to ERP on postoperative outcomes following open and minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer. Within a resource limited setting, ERP was found to feasible, safe, and effective in both open and minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery.