Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Patient outcomes and adherence to an enhanced recovery pathway for open gynecologic surgery: a 6-year single-center experience
  1. Judy Hayek1,
  2. Andres Zorrilla-Vaca2,
  3. Larissa A Meyer3,
  4. Gabriel Mena2,
  5. Javier Lasala2,
  6. Maria D Iniesta3,
  7. Tina Suki4,
  8. Sarah Huepenbecker3,
  9. Katherine Cain5,
  10. Juan Garcia-Lopez3 and
  11. Pedro T Ramirez3
  1. 1 Gynecologic Oncology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
  2. 2 Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
  3. 3 Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
  4. 4 Gynecology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
  5. 5 Division of Pharmacy, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Judy Hayek, Gynecologic Oncology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA; j.hayek92{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate compliance with an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol for open gynecologic surgery at a tertiary center and the relationship between levels of compliance and peri-operative outcomes.

Methods This retrospective cohort study was conducted between November 2014 and December 2020. Two groups were defined based on compliance level (<80% vs ≥80%). The primary outcome was to analyze overall compliance since implementation of the ERAS protocol. The secondary endpoint was to assess the relationship between compliance and 30-day re-admission, length of stay, re-operation, opioid-free rates, and post-operative complications. We also assessed compliance with each ERAS element over three time periods (P1: 2014–2016, P2: 2017–2018, P3: 2019–2020), categorizing patients according to the date of surgery. Values were compared between P1 and P3.

Results A total of 1879 patients were included. Overall compliance over the period of 6 years was 74% (95% CI 71.9% to 78.2%). Mean overall compliance increased from 69.7% to 75.8% between P1 and P3. Compliance with ERAS ≥80% was associated with lower Clavien–Dindo complication rates (grades III (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.93) and V (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.60)), 30-day re-admission rates (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.88), and length of stay (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.75). No difference in opioid consumption was seen. Pre-operatively, there was increased adherence to counseling by 50% (p=0.01), optimization by 21% (p=0.02), and carbohydrate loading by 74% (p=0.02). Intra-operatively, compliance with use of short-acting anesthetics increased by 37% (p=0.01) and avoidance of abdominal drainage increased by 7% (p=0.04). Use of goal-directed fluid therapy decreased by 16% (p=0.04). Post-operatively, there was increased compliance with avoiding salt and water overload (8%, p=0.02) and multimodal analgesia (5%, p=0.02).

Conclusions Over the time period of the study, overall compliance increased from 69.7% to 75.8%. Compliance (≥80%) with ERAS is associated with lower complication rates, fewer 30-day re-admissions, and shorter length of stay without impacting re-operation rates and post-operative opioid use.

  • Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
  • Postoperative complications
  • Postoperative Care

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @JudyHayek, @gabemenaMD, @sarah_huep, @pedroramirezMD

  • Contributors JH: Investigation, validation, writing - original draft, visualization. AZ-V: Investigation, formal analysis, validation, writing - original draft, visualization. LAM, GM, KC, JL, SH, J-GL, TS: Review and editing. MDI: Writing - review and editing, supervision. PTR: Writing - review and editing, supervision, project administration and guarantor.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.