Association of early oral intake after extubation and independent activities of daily living at discharge among intensive care unit patients: A single centre retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

We investigated the association between the time to first post-extubation oral intake, barriers to oral intake, and the rate of activities of daily living (ADL) independence at discharge (Barthel Index score <70).

METHOD

Consecutive patients admitted to the intensive care unit, aged ≥18 years, and mechanically ventilated for ≥48 hr were retrospectively enrolled. The time to first oral intake, barriers to oral intake, daily changes, and clinical outcomes were assessed. Multiple logistic regression analysis adjusted for baseline characteristics was used to determine the association between time to first post-extubation oral intake and ADL independence.

RESULT

Among the 136 patients, 74 were assigned to the ADL independence group and 62 to the dependence group. The time to first post-extubation oral intake was significantly associated with ADL independence (adjusted p = < 0.001) and was a predictor of ADL independence at discharge. Respiratory and dysphagia-related factors (odds ratio [OR] 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.82, p = 0.015 and OR 0.07; CI 0.01-0.68, p = 0.021, respectively) were significantly associated with the ADL independence at discharge.

CONCLUSION

Respiratory and dysphagia-related factors, as barriers to the initiation of oral intake after extubation, were significantly associated with ADL independence at discharge.

Fast tracking in cardiac surgery: is it safe?

Background

While fast track clinical pathways have been demonstrated to reduce resource utilization in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, it remains unclear as to whether they adversely affect post-operative outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of fast tracking on post-operative outcomes following cardiac surgery.

Methods

In a retrospective study, all patients undergoing first-time, on-pump, non-emergent coronary artery bypass grafting, valve, or coronary artery bypass grafting + valve at a single centre between 2010 and 2017 were included. Patients were considered to have been fast tracked if they were extubated and transferred from intensive care to a step-down unit on the same day as their procedure. The risk-adjusted effect of fast tracking on a 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, renal failure, infection, atrial fibrillation, and readmission to hospital was determined. Furthermore, propensity score matching was used to match fasting track patients in a 1-to-1 manner with their nearest “neighbor” in the control group and subsequently compared in terms of 30-day post-operative outcomes.

Results

3252 patients formed the final study population (fast track: n = 245; control: n = 3007). Patients who were fast tracked experienced reduced time to initial extubation (4.3 vs. 5.6 h, p < 0.0001) and lower median initial intensive care unit length of stay (7.8 vs. 20.4 h, p < 0.0001). Fast tracked patients experienced lower 30-day rates of the composite outcome (42.4% vs. 51.5%, p = 0.008). However, following propensity score matching, fast tracked patients experienced similar 30-day rates of the composite outcome as the control group (42.4% vs. 44.5%, p = 0.72). After risk adjustment using multivariable regression modeling, fast tracking was predictive of an improved 30-day composite outcome (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57–0.98, p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Fast track clinical pathways was associated with reduced intensive care unit, overall length of stay and similar 30-day post-operative outcomes. These results suggest that fast tracking appropriate patients may reduce resource utilization, while maintaining patient safety.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01815-9.

Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery

The aims of "Fast track" cardiac anesthesia including shortening time to tracheal extubation and to hospital discharge in selected patients. The evidence is weak and recommendations are mostly based on observational, nonrandomized data and expert opinion. The majority of outcomes studied include: time to tracheal extubation, hospital/ICU length of stay, procedure-related financial costs, and the type/amount of opioids used in the peri-operative period. There should be a shift in focus to generating higher quality evidence supporting the use of enhanced recovery protocols in cardiac surgical patients and finding ways to tailor enhanced recovery principles to all cardiac surgical patients. Research should focus on the quality of care for individual patients and the delivery of health care to the public.

Can soluble urokinase plasminogen receptor predict outcomes after cardiac surgery?

OBJECTIVES

Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) is a biomarker that has been implicated in several cardiac pathologies and has been shown to be elevated in critically ill populations. We measured plasma suPAR in a cohort of cardiac surgical patients to evaluate its ability to predict prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay and development of complications following surgery. We compared suPAR against EuroSCORE II and C-reactive protein (CRP).

METHODS

Ninety patients undergoing cardiac surgery were recruited with samples taken preoperatively and on postoperative days 1, 2 and 3. suPAR was measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) was used to test predictive capability of suPAR. Comparison was made with EuroSCORE II and CRP.

RESULTS

suPAR increased over time (P < 0.001) with higher levels in patients requiring prolonged ICU and hospital stay, and prolonged ventilation (P < 0.05). suPAR was predictive for prolonged ICU and hospital stay, and prolonged ventilation at all time points (AUROC 0.66-0.74). Interestingly, this association was also observed preoperatively, with preoperative suPAR predicting prolonged ICU (AUROC 0.66), and hospital stay (AUROC 0.67) and prolonged ventilation (AUROC 0.74). The predictive value of preoperative suPAR compared favourably to EuroSCORE II and CRP.

CONCLUSIONS

suPAR increases following cardiac surgery and levels are higher in those who require prolonged ICU stay, prolonged hospital stay and prolonged ventilation. Preoperative suPAR compares favourably to EuroSCORE II and CRP in the prediction of these outcomes. suPAR could be a useful biomarker in predicting outcome following cardiac surgery, helping inform clinical decision-making.

CLINICAL REGISTRATION

West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee Reference: 12/WS/0179 (AM01).

Do perioperative protocols of enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery improve postoperative outcome?

A best evidence topic was constructed according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether the application of an enhanced recovery protocol or pathway improves patient outcomes after cardiac surgery. A total of 3091 papers were found using the reported search. Finally, 12 papers represented the best available evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Six studies referred to enhanced recovery protocol as fast track (FT) and another 6 studies referred to it as enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). Significant differences from conventional care were reported for time to extubation or intubation time in 4 studies (3 FT, 1 ERAS), duration of intensive care unit stay in 6 studies (4 FT, 2 ERAS), length of hospital stay (LOS) in 8 studies (5 FT, 3 ERAS), cost in 5 studies (4 FT, 1 ERAS), pain scores in 2 studies (2 ERAS) and opioid use in 3 studies (3 ERAS). We conclude that FT or ERAS improve postoperative outcomes including length of stay and pain control, without increasing morbidity, mortality or readmission. However, there is a need for prospective studies and standardized protocols.

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.

Comparison of Fast-Track and Conventional Anesthesia for Transthoracic Closure of Ventricular Septal Defects in Pediatric Patients

BACKGROUND

To compare and analyze the safety and efficacy of fast-track and conventional anesthesia for transthoracic closure of ventricular septal defects (VSDs) in pediatric patients.

METHODS

A total of 82 pediatric patients undergoing transthoracic closure of VSDs between September and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups, including 42 patients in group F (fast-track anesthesia) and 40 patients in group C (conventional anesthesia). The perioperative clinical data of both groups were collected and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no fatal complications in both groups. No complete atrioventricular block (AVB), new aortic valve regurgitation, and device closure failure were observed. No significant difference was found in preoperative general data or intraoperative hemodynamic changes between the two groups (P >0.05). However, the mechanical ventilation time, length of postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization expenses of group F were significantly lower than those of group C (P <0.05).

CONCLUSION

It is safe and effective to use fast-track anesthesia for transthoracic closure of VSDs in pediatric patients.

Enhanced Recovery after Vascular Surgery

The beginnings of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program were first developed for patients in colorectal surgery, and after it was established as the standard of care in this surgical field, it began to be applied in many others surgical areas. This is multimodal, evidence-based approach program and includes simultaneous optimization of preoperative status of patients, adequate selection of surgical procedure and postoperative management. The aim of this program is to reduce complications, the length of hospital stay and to improve the patients outcome. Over the past decades, special attention was directed to the postoperative management in vascular surgery, especially after major vascular surgery because of the great risk of multiorgan failure, such as: respiratory failure, myocardial infarction, hemodynamic instability, coagulopathy, renal failure, neurological disorders, and intra-abdominal complications. Although a lot of effort was put into it, there is no unique acceptable program for ERAS in this surgical field, and there is still a need to point out the factors responsible for postoperative outcomes of these patients. So far, it is known that special attention should be paid to already existing diseases, type and the duration of the surgical intervention, hemodynamic and fluid management, nutrition, pain management, and early mobilization of patients.

[Perioperative risk and mortality after major surgery]

Although anesthesia-associated mortality has been significantly reduced down to 0.00068-0.00082% over the last decades, recent studies have revealed a high perioperative mortality of 0.8- 4%. Apart from anesthesia and surgery-induced major complications, perioperative mortality is primarily negatively influenced by individual patient comorbidities. These risk factors predispose for acute critical incidents (e.g., myocardial infarction); however, the majority of fatal complications are a result of slowly progressing conditions, particularly infections or the sequelae of systemic inflammation. This implicates a broad window of opportunity for the detection and treatment of slow-onset complications to improve the perioperative outcome. The term "failure to rescue" (FTR), i.e., the proportion of patients who die from major complications compared to the number of all patients with complications, has been introduced as a valid indicator for the quality of perioperative care. Growing evidence has already shown that FTR is an underestimated factor in perioperative medicine accounting for or at least being involved in the development of postoperative mortality. While the incidence of severe postoperative complications amazingly does not show much variation between hospitals, FTR shows significant differences implying a major potential for improvement. With 14 million surgical procedures per year in Germany, a postoperative mortality of approximately 1% and an avoidable FTR rate of 40% mean that there are an estimated 60,000 preventable deaths per year. Hence, in the future it will be imperative to (1) identify patients at risk, (2) to prevent the development of postoperative complications with the use of adequate adjunctive therapeutic strategies, (3) to establish surveillance and monitoring systems for the early detection of postoperative complications and (4) to treat postoperative complications efficiently and in time when they arise.

Relocation of patients after cardiac surgery: is it worth the effort?

BACKGROUND

Fast-track protocols may facilitate early patient discharge from the site of surgery through the implementation of more expedient pathways. However, costs may merely be shifted towards other parts of the health care system. We aimed to investigate the consequence of patient transfers on overall hospitalisation, follow-up and readmission rate after cardiac surgery.

METHODS

A single-centre descriptive cohort study using prospectively entered registry data. The study included 4,515 patients who underwent cardiac surgery at Aarhus University Hospital during the period 1 April 2006 to 31 December 2012. Patients were grouped and analysed based on type of discharge: Directly from site of surgery or after transfer to a regional hospital. The cohort was obtained from the Western Denmark Heart Registry and matched to the Danish National Hospital Register.

RESULTS

Median overall length of stay was 9 days (7.0;14.4). Transferred patients had longer length of stay, median difference of 2.0 days, p < 0.001. Time to first outpatient consultation was 41(30;58) days in transferred patients vs. 45(29;74) days, p < 0.001. 18.6% was readmitted within 30 days. Mean time to readmission was 18.4 ± 6.4 days. Median length of readmission was 3(1,6) days. There was no difference in readmissions between groups. Leading cause of readmission was cardiovascular disease with 48%.

CONCLUSION

Transfer of patients does not overtly reduce health care costs, but overall LOS and time to first outpatient consultation are substantially longer in patients transferred to secondary hospitals than in patients discharged directly. Readmission rate is high during the month after surgery, but with no difference between groups.

Risk Factors and Outcomes Associated With Readmission to the Intensive Care Unit After Cardiac Surgery

Unplanned readmission to the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with poor prognosis, longer hospital stay, increased costs, and higher mortality rate. In this retrospective study, involving 1368 patients, the risk factors for and outcomes of ICU readmission after cardiac surgery were analyzed. The readmission rate was 5.9%, and the most common reason for readmission was cardiac issues. Preoperative risk factors were comorbid conditions, mechanical ventilation, and admission route. Perioperative risk factors were nonelective surgery, duration of cardiopulmonary bypass, and longer operation time. Postoperative risk factors were prolonged mechanical ventilation time, new-onset arrhythmia, unplanned reoperation, massive blood transfusion, prolonged inotropic infusions, and complications. Other factors were high blood glucose level, hemoglobin level, and score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II. In-hospital stay was longer and late mortality was higher in the readmitted group. These data could help clinical practitioners create improved ICU discharge protocols or treatment algorithms to reduce length of stay or to reduce readmissions.

A systematic review of enhanced recovery care after colorectal surgery in elderly patients

AIM

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) can decrease complications and reduces hospital stay. Less certain is whether elderly patients can fully adhere to and benefit from ERAS. We aimed to determine the safety, feasibility and efficacy of enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery in patients aged ≥ 65 years old.

METHOD

A systematic search of Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane was performed to identify (i) studies comparing elderly patients managed with ERAS vs traditional care, (ii) cohort studies of ERAS with results of elderly vs younger patients and (iii) any case series of ERAS in elderly patients. End-points of interest were length of hospital stay, complications, mortality, readmission and re-operation, and ERAS protocol adherence.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included. Two randomized controlled trials demonstrated shorter hospital stay in elderly patients with ERAS compared with elderly patients with non-ERAS (9 vs 13.2 days, P < 0.001; 5.5 vs 7 days, P < 0.0001). Fewer complications occurred with ERAS in both randomized controlled trials (27.4% vs 58.6%, P < 0.0001; 5% vs 21.1%, P = 0.045). The majority of observational studies did not show differences in outcome between elderly and younger patients in terms of hospital stay, morbidity or mortality. Inconsistent findings between cohort studies may reflect the disparities in ERAS protocol definitions or differences in study populations.

CONCLUSION

ERAS can be safely applied to elderly patients to reduce complications and shorten length of hospital stay. Further studies are required to assess whether elderly patients are able to adhere to, and benefit from, ERAS protocols to the same extent as younger patients.

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.

Initiatives to reduce length of stay in acute hospital settings: a rapid synthesis of evidence relating to enhanced recovery programmes

Background

There has been growing interest in the NHS over recent years in the use of enhanced recovery programmes for elective surgery to deliver productivity gains through reduced length of stay, fewer postoperative complications, reduced readmissions and improved patient outcomes.

Objectives

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing elective surgery in acute hospital settings. To identify and critically describe key factors associated with successful adoption, implementation and sustainability of enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings. To summarise existing knowledge about patient experience of enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings.

Data sources

Eight databases, including Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects, International Prospective of Systematic Reviews, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and MEDLINE, were searched from 1990 to March 2013 without language restrictions. Relevant reports and guidelines and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies.

Review methods

Systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), economic evaluations, and UK NHS cost analysis studies were included if they evaluated the impact of enhanced recovery programmes on any health- and cost-related outcomes. Eligible studies included patients undergoing elective surgery in an acute hospital setting. Implementation case studies and surveys of patient experience in a UK setting were also eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment of systematic reviews, RCTs and economic evaluations was based on existing Centre for Reviews and Dissemination processes. All stages of the review process were performed by one researcher and checked by a second with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The type and range of evidence precluded meta-analysis and we therefore performed a narrative synthesis, differentiating between clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, implementation case studies and evidence on patient experience.

Results

Seventeen systematic reviews of varying quality were included in this report. Twelve additional RCTs were included; all were considered at high risk of bias. Most of the evidence focused on colorectal surgery. Fourteen innovation case studies and 15 implementation case studies undertaken in NHS settings were identified and provide descriptions of factors critical to the success of an enhanced recovery programme. Ten relevant economic evaluations were identified evaluating costs and outcomes over short time horizons. Despite the plethora of studies, robust evidence was sparse. 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 reported reductions in length of stay reflecting the limited evidence identified.

Limitations

Findings relating to other clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, implementation and patient experience were hampered by a lack of robust evidence and poor reporting.

Conclusions

There is consistent, albeit limited, evidence that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce length of patient hospital stay without increasing readmission rates. The extent to which managers and clinicians considering implementing enhanced recovery programmes can realise reductions and cost savings will depend on length of stays achieved under their existing care pathway. RCTs comparing an enhanced recovery programme with conventional care continue to be conducted and published. Further single-centre RCTs of this kind are not a priority. Rather, what is needed is improved collection and reporting of how enhanced recovery programmes are implemented, resourced and experienced in NHS settings.

Funding

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

Integrating hospital administrative data to improve health care efficiency and outcomes: "the socrates story"

Evaluation of health care outcomes has become increasingly important as we strive to improve quality and efficiency while controlling cost. Many groups feel that analysis of large datasets will be useful in optimizing resource utilization; however, the ideal blend of clinical and administrative data points has not been developed. Hospitals and health care systems have several tools to measure cost and resource utilization, but the data are often housed in disparate systems that are not integrated and do not permit multisystem analysis. Systems Outcomes and Clinical Resources AdministraTive Efficiency Software (SOCRATES) is a novel data merging, warehousing, analysis, and reporting technology, which brings together disparate hospital administrative systems generating automated or customizable risk-adjusted reports. Used in combination with standardized enhanced care pathways, SOCRATES offers a mechanism to improve the quality and efficiency of care, with the ability to measure real-time changes in outcomes.

Enhanced recovery after vascular surgery: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme is a multimodal evidence-based approach to surgical care which begins in the preoperative setting and extends through to patient discharge in the postoperative period. The primary components of ERAS include the introduction of preoperative patient education; reduction in perioperative use of nasogastric tubes and drains; the use of multimodal analgesia; goal-directed fluid management; early removal of Foley catheter; early mobilization, and early oral nutrition. The ERAS approach has gradually evolved to become the standard of care in colorectal surgery and is presently being used in other specialty areas such as vascular surgery. Currently there is little evidence available for the implementation of ERAS in this field. We plan to conduct a systematic review of this literature with a view to incorporating ERAS principles into the management of major elective vascular surgery procedures.

METHODS

We will search EMBASE (OVID, 1947 to June 2012), Medline (OVID, 1948 to June 2012), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley, Issue 1, 2012). Searches will be performed with no year or language restrictions. For inclusion, studies must look at adult patients over 18 years. Major elective vascular surgery includes carotid, bypass, aneurysm and amputation procedures. Studies must have evaluated usual care against an ERAS intervention in the preoperative, perioperative or postoperative period of care. Primary outcome measures are length of stay, decreased complication rate, and patient satisfaction or expectations. Only randomized controlled trials will be included.

DISCUSSION

Most ERAS approaches have been considered in the context of colorectal surgery. Given the increasing use of multiple yet different aspects of this pathway in vascular surgery, it is timely to systematically review the evidence for their independent or combined outcomes, with a view to implementing them in this clinical setting. Results from this review will have important implications for vascular surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, and other health care professionals when making evidenced-based decisions about the use of ERAS in daily practice.