Effects of Supervised Physical Exercise as Prehabilitation on Body Composition, Functional Capacity and Quality of Life in Bariatric Surgery Candidates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Evaluation of the Effect of the Pre-Operative Exercise Training on Weight Loss, Quality of Life, and Cardiopulmonary Parameter in Bariatric Metabolic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of pre-surgery exercise training on cardiopulmonary fitness. Ten articles (six RCTs and four non-RCTs) involving 281 individuals were finally included in the synthesis. Regarding the effect on VO2 peak, overall standardized mean differences were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.31 to 1.11, n = 103) with heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = 0.49). For 6MWT, overall weighted mean differences (distance in meters) were 31.87 (95% CI, 27.84 to 35.89, n = 100) with heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = 0.96). Engaging in pre-bariatric metabolic surgery exercise training might improve anthropometric parameters and cardiopulmonary fitness with no significant changes in components of quality of life. However, considering high levels of heterogeneity, the results should be generalized cautiously.

MBSAQIP risk calculator use in bariatric surgery is associated with a reduction in serious complications: a retrospective analysis of 210,710 patients

BACKGROUND

The Metabolic and Bariatric Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator was developed to provide patient-specific information to assist surgical decision-making. To date, no study has characterized which patients are being evaluated with this tool.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to characterize the use and impact of the MBSAQIP calculator.

SETTING

MBSAQIP collects data from 955 centers in North America.

METHODS

The 2021 MBSAQIP database was evaluated for the use of the calculator on preoperative counseling for patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Patient characteristics, operative techniques, and outcomes were compared with bivariate analysis. Multivariable modeling evaluated factors including use of the calculator independently associated with serious complications and mortality.

RESULTS

Our study included 210,710 patients, 35,158 (16.7%) of whom were evaluated using the calculator. Patients with whom the calculator was used preoperatively were older (43.8 ± 11.6 yr versus 43.6 ± 11.7 yr; P < .001) and were more likely to have insulin-dependent diabetes, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, renal insufficiency, and sleep apnea. More patients underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in the calculator cohort compared with the cohort that did not use the calculator (29.6% versus 28.6%; P < .003). The rate of serious complication was significantly less in the calculator cohort (3.1% versus 3.4%; P < .030). Multivariable modeling evaluating serious complications showed that use of the calculator was independently associated with reduced risk of serious complications (odds ratio .87, CI .82-.93, P < .001) but was not associated with mortality.

CONCLUSION

The use of the risk calculator may help to reduce the incidence of complications by opening a dialogue between healthcare professionals and patients, setting realistic expectations, and identifying modifiable risk factors.

Prehabilitation for general surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation seeks to optimize patient health before surgery to improve outcomes. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted on prehabilitation, however an updated synthesis of this evidence is required across General Surgery to inform potential Supplementary discipline-level protocols. Accordingly, this systematic review of RCTs aimed to evaluate the use of prehabilitation interventions across the discipline of General Surgery.

METHODS

This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023403289), and adhered to PRISMA 2020 and SWiM guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid Embase were searched to 4 March 2023 for RCTs evaluating prehabilitation interventions within the discipline of General Surgery. After data extraction, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Quantitative and qualitative data were synthesized and analysed. However, meta-analysis was precluded due to heterogeneity across included studies.

RESULTS

From 929 records, 36 RCTs of mostly low risk of bias were included. 17 (47.2%) were from Europe, and 14 (38.9%) North America. 30 (83.3%) investigated cancer populations. 31 (86.1%) investigated physical interventions, finding no significant difference in 16 (51.6%) and significant improvement in 14 (45.2%). Nine (25%) investigated psychological interventions: six (66.7%) found significant improvement, three (33.3%) found no significant difference. Five (13.9%) investigated nutritional interventions, finding no significant difference in three (60%), and significant improvement in two (40%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation interventions showed mixed levels of effectiveness, and there is insufficient RCT evidence to suggest system-level delivery across General Surgery within standardized protocols. However, given potential benefits and non-inferiority to standard care, they should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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.

Multimodal Prehabilitation in Heart Transplant Recipients Improves Short-Term Post-Transplant Outcomes without Increasing Costs

(1) Background and aim: This study aimed to investigate the impact of prehabilitation on the postoperative outcomes of heart transplantation and its cost-effectiveness. (2) Methods: This single-center, ambispective cohort study included forty-six candidates for elective heart transplantation from 2017 to 2021 attending a multimodal prehabilitation program consisting of supervised exercise training, physical activity promotion, nutritional optimization, and psychological support. The postoperative course was compared to a control cohort consisting of patients transplanted from 2014 to 2017 and those contemporaneously not involved in prehabilitation. (3) Results: A significant improvement was observed in preoperative functional capacity (endurance time 281 vs. 728 s, p < 0.001) and quality-of-life (Minnesota score 58 vs. 47, p = 0.046) after the program. No exercise-related events were registered. The prehabilitation cohort showed a lower rate and severity of postoperative complications (comprehensive complication index 37 vs. 31, p = 0.033), lower mechanical ventilation time (37 vs. 20 h, p = 0.032), ICU stay (7 vs. 5 days, p = 0.01), total hospitalization stay (23 vs. 18 days, p = 0.008) and less need for transfer to nursing/rehabilitation facilities after hospital discharge (31% vs. 3%, p = 0.009). A cost-consequence analysis showed that prehabilitation did not increase the total surgical process costs. (4) Conclusions: Multimodal prehabilitation before heart transplantation has benefits on short-term postoperative outcomes potentially attributable to enhancement of physical status, without cost-increasing.