Impact of critical pathway implementation on hospital stay and costs in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy

Impact of enhanced recovery protocols after pancreatoduodenectomy: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This individual-patient data meta-analysis investigated the effects of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols compared with conventional care on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched systematically for articles reporting outcomes of ERAS after pancreatoduodenectomy published up to August 2020. Comparative studies were included. Main outcomes were postoperative functional recovery elements, postoperative morbidity, duration of hospital stay, and readmission.

RESULTS

Individual-patient data were obtained from 17 of 31 eligible studies comprising 3108 patients. Time to liquid (mean difference (MD) -3.23 (95 per cent c.i. -4.62 to -1.85) days; P < 0.001) and solid (-3.84 (-5.09 to -2.60) days; P < 0.001) intake, time to passage of first stool (MD -1.38 (-1.82 to -0.94) days; P < 0.001) and time to removal of the nasogastric tube (3.03 (-4.87 to -1.18) days; P = 0.001) were reduced with ERAS. ERAS was associated with lower overall morbidity (risk difference (RD) -0.04, 95 per cent c.i. -0.08 to -0.01; P = 0.015), less delayed gastric emptying (RD -0.11, -0.22 to -0.01; P = 0.039) and a shorter duration of hospital stay (MD -2.33 (-2.98 to -1.69) days; P < 0.001) without a higher readmission rate.

CONCLUSION

ERAS improved postoperative outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy. Implementation should be encouraged.

Multicomponent hospital-led interventions to reduce hospital stay for older adults following elective surgery: a systematic review

Background

Elective older adult inpatient admissions are increasingly common. Older adults are at an elevated risk of adverse events in hospital, potentially increasing with lengthier hospital stay. Hospital-led organisational strategies may optimise hospital stay for elective older adult inpatients.

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-led multicomponent interventions to reduce hospital stay for older adults undergoing elective hospital admissions.

Data sources

Seven bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) were searched from inception to date of search (August 2017), alongside carrying out of web searches, citation searching, inspecting relevant reviews, consulting stakeholders and contacting authors. This search was duplicated, with an additional cost-filter, to identify cost-effectiveness evidence.

Review methods

Comparative studies were sought that evaluated the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of relevant interventions in elective inpatients with a mean or median age of ≥ 60 years. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were completed independently by two reviewers. The main outcome was length of stay, but all outcomes were considered. Studies were sorted by procedure, intervention and outcome categories. Where possible, standardised mean differences or odds ratios were calculated. Meta-analysis was performed when multiple randomised controlled trials had the same intervention, treatment procedure, comparator and outcome. Findings were explored using narrative synthesis.

Findings

A total of 218 articles were included, with 80 articles from 73 effectiveness studies (n = 26,365 patients) prioritised for synthesis, including 34 randomised controlled trials conducted outside the UK and 39 studies from the UK, of which 12 were randomised controlled trials. Fifteen studies included cost-effectiveness data. The evidence was dominated by enhanced recovery protocols and prehabilitation, implemented to improve recovery from either colorectal surgery or lower limb arthroplasty. Six other surgical categories and four other intervention types were identified. Meta-analysis found that enhanced recovery protocols were associated with 1.5 days’ reduction in hospital stay among patients undergoing colorectal surgery (Cohen’sd = –0.51, 95% confidence interval –0.78 to –0.24;p < 0.001) and with 5 days’ reduction among those undergoing upper abdominal surgery (Cohen’sd = –1.04, 95% confidence interval –1.55 to –0.53;p < 0.001). Evidence from the UK was not pooled (owing to mixed study designs), but it echoed findings from the international literature. Length of stay usually was reduced with intervention or was no different. Other clinical outcomes also improved or were no worse with intervention. Patient-reported outcomes were not frequently reported. Cost and cost-effectiveness evidence came from 15 highly heterogeneous studies and was less conclusive.

Limitations

Studies were usually of moderate or weak quality. Some intervention or treatment types were under-reported or absent. The reporting of variance data often precluded secondary analysis.

Conclusions

Enhanced recovery and prehabilitation interventions were associated with reduced hospital stay without detriment to other clinical outcomes, particularly for patients undergoing colorectal surgery, lower limb arthroplasty or upper abdominal surgery. The impacts on patient-reported outcomes, health-care costs or additional service use are not well known.

Future work

Further studies evaluating of the effectiveness of new enhanced recovery pathways are not required in colorectal surgery or lower limb arthroplasty. However, the applicability of these pathways to other procedures is uncertain. Future studies should evaluate the implementation of interventions to reduce service variation, in-hospital patient-reported outcomes, impacts on health and social care service use, and longer-term patient-reported outcomes.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017080637.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Effect of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program on pancreaticoduodenectomy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This study aims to investigate the noninferiority of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

In this single-center trial, we randomly assigned 276 adult patients who underwent open PD into ERAS and conventional groups with 138 patients in each, from 2015 through 2017. The primary endpoint was the incidence of overall morbidity until postoperative 3 months. The secondary endpoints were in-hospital or 30-day mortality, postoperative length of stay (LOS), nutritional status and overall hospital costs.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity was reported in 64 patients (52.0%, ERAS group) and in 68 patients (54.8%, conventional group) (risk difference [RD] -2.81 percentage points (pp); 90% two-sided confidence interval -13.24 to 7.63). Mortality did not occur in any patients. The two groups did not differ significantly in median postoperative LOS (both 11 days; RD -8.46 pp), body mass index (22.4 ± 2.75 vs. 22.4 ± 2.65 kg/m² ; RD -3.48 pp), Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment score over 4 (45 [40.5%] vs. 50 [43.1%] patients; RD -2.56 pp), and median overall hospital cost (15.61 vs. 16.04, ×10⁶ KRW; RD -6.08 pp).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in PD, modified ERAS protocol was not inferior to conventional protocol, while reducing treatment burden.

Big-data analysis: A clinical pathway on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

A clinical pathway (CP) is a standardized approach for disease management. However, big data-based evidence is rarely involved in CP for related common bile duct (CBD) stones, let alone outcome comparisons before and after CP implementation.

AIM

To investigate the value of CP implementation in patients with CBD stones undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital in patients with CBD stones undergoing ERCP from January 2007 to December 2017. The data and outcomes were compared by using univariate and multivariable regression/linear models between the patients who received conventional care (non-pathway group, n = 467) and CP care (pathway group, n = 2196).

RESULTS

At baseline, the main differences observed between the two groups were the percentage of patients with multiple stones (P < 0.001) and incidence of cholangitis complication (P < 0.05). The percentage of antibiotic use and complications in the CP group were significantly less than those in the non-pathway group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55-0.93, P = 0.012, adjusted OR = 0.44, 95%CI: 0.33-0.59, P < 0.001, respectively]. Patients spent lower costs on hospitalization, operation, nursing, medication, and medical consumable materials (P < 0.001 for all), and even experienced shorter length of hospital stay (LOHS) (P < 0.001) after the CP implementation. No significant differences in clinical outcomes, readmission rate, or secondary surgery rate were presented between the patients in the non-pathway and CP groups.

CONCLUSION

Implementing a CP for patients with CBD stones is a safe mode to reduce the LOHS, hospital costs, antibiotic use, and complication rate.