Guidelines for pre- and intra-operative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations--Part I. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;140:313-322. [PMID: 26603969 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.11.015]

Antibiotic prophylaxis for elective hysterectomy

BACKGROUND

Elective hysterectomy is commonly performed for benign gynaecological conditions. Hysterectomy can be performed abdominally, laparoscopically, or vaginally, with or without laparoscopic assistance. Antibiotic prophylaxis consists of administration of antibiotics to reduce the rate of postoperative infection, which otherwise affects 40%-50% of women after vaginal hysterectomy, and more than 20% after abdominal hysterectomy. No Cochrane review has systematically assessed evidence on this topic.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched electronic databases to November 2016 (including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), as well as clinical trials registers, conference abstracts, and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing use of antibiotics versus placebo or other antibiotics as prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane standard methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review 37 RCTs, which performed 20 comparisons of various antibiotics versus placebo and versus one another (6079 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of study findings were risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, imprecision due to small samples and low event rates, and inadequate reporting of adverse effects. Any antibiotic versus placebo Vaginal hysterectomyModerate-quality evidence shows that women who received antibiotic prophylaxis had fewer total postoperative infections (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.40; five RCTs, N = 610; I2 = 85%), less urinary tract infection (UTI) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; eight RCTs, N = 1790; I2 = 44%), fewer pelvic infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.39; 11 RCTs, N = 2010; I2 = 57%), and fewer postoperative fevers (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.54; nine RCTs, N = 1879; I2 = 48%) than women who did not receive such prophylaxis. This suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 34% to 7% to 14%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.10; one RCT, N = 146; very low-quality evidence).Data were insufficient for comparison of adverse effects. Abdominal hysterectomyWomen who received antibiotic prophylaxis of any class had fewer total postoperative infections (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.38; one RCT, N = 345; low-quality evidence), abdominal wound infections (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92; 11 RCTs, N = 2434; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), UTIs (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.51; 11 RCTs, N = 2547; I2 = 26%; moderate-quality evidence), pelvic infections (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71; 11 RCTs, N = 1883; I2 = 11%; moderate-quality evidence), and postoperative fevers (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.70; 11 RCTs, N = 2581; I2 = 51%; moderate-quality evidence) than women who did not receive prophylaxis, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 16% to 1% to 6%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.69; two RCTs, N = 476; I2 = 29%; very low-quality evidence).It is unclear whether rates of adverse effects differed between groups (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.18; two RCTs, N = 430; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Head-to-head comparisons between antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified four comparisons: cephalosporin versus penicillin (two RCTs, N = 470), cephalosporin versus tetracycline (one RCT, N = 51), antiprotozoal versus lincosamide (one RCT, N = 80), and cephalosporin versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes, except that fewer cases of total postoperative infection and postoperative fever were reported in women who received cephalosporin than in those who received antiprotozoal.Only one comparison (cephalosporin vs penicillin; two RCTs, N = 451) yielded data on adverse effects and showed no differences between groups. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified only one comparison: cephalosporin versus penicillin (N = 220). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes. Adverse effects were not reported. Combined antibiotics versus single antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified three comparisons: cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus cephalosporin (one RCT, N = 78), cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78), and penicillin plus antiprotozoal versus penicillin (one RCT, N = 230). Data were unavailable for most outcomes, including adverse effects. We found no evidence of differences between groups, except that fewer women receiving cephalosporin with antiprotozoal received a diagnosis of total postoperative infection, UTI, or postoperative fever compared with women receiving antiprotozoal. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified one comparison (penicillin plus antiprotozoal vs penicillin only; one RCT, N = 230). Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. Adverse effects were not reported. Comparison of cephalosporins in different regimensSingle small trials addressed dose comparisons and provided no data for most outcomes, including adverse effects. Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. No trials compared route of administration.The quality of evidence for all head-to-head and dose comparisons was very low owing to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias related to poor reporting of methods.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be effective in preventing postoperative infection in women undergoing elective vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy, regardless of the dose regimen. However, evidence is insufficient to show whether use of prophylactic antibiotics influences rates of adverse effects. Similarly, evidence is insufficient to show which (if any) individual antibiotic, dose regimen, or route of administration is safest and most effective. The most recent studies included in this review were 14 years old at the time of our search. Thus findings from included studies may not reflect current practice in perioperative and postoperative care and may not show locoregional antimicrobial resistance patterns.

Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: a strategy to transform surgical care across a health system

Background

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to have a positive impact on outcome. The ERAS care system includes an evidence-based guideline, an implementation program, and an interactive audit system to support practice change. The purpose of this study is to describe the use of the Theoretic Domains Framework (TDF) in changing surgical care and application of the Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) model to analyze end-to-end implementation of ERAS in colorectal surgery across multiple sites within a single health system. The ultimate intent of this work is to allow for the development of a model for spread, scale, and sustainability of ERAS in Alberta Health Services (AHS).

Methods

ERAS for colorectal surgery was implemented at two sites and then spread to four additional sites. The ERAS Interactive Audit System (EIAS) was used to assess compliance with the guidelines, length of stay, readmissions, and complications. Data sources informing knowledge translation included surveys, focus groups, interviews, and other qualitative data sources such as minutes and status updates. The QUERI model and TDF were used to thematically analyze 189 documents with 2188 quotes meeting the inclusion criteria. Data sources were analyzed for barriers or enablers, organized into a framework that included individual to organization impact, and areas of focus for guideline implementation.

Results

Compliance with the evidence-based guidelines for ERAS in colorectal surgery at baseline was 40%. Post implementation compliance, consistent with adoption of best practice, improved to 65%. Barriers and enablers were categorized as clinical practice (22%), individual provider (26%), organization (19%), external environment (7%), and patients (25%). In the Alberta context, 26% of barriers and enablers to ERAS implementation occurred at the site and unit levels, with a provider focus 26% of the time, a patient focus 26% of the time, and a system focus 22% of the time.

Conclusions

Using the ERAS care system and applying the QUERI model and TDF allow for identification of strategies that can support diffusion and sustainment of innovation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery across multiple sites within a health care system.

Enhanced recovery after surgery: Current research insights and future direction

Since the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) was introduced in the late 1990s the idea of implementing specific interventions throughout the peri-operative period to improve patient recovery has been proven to be beneficial. Minimally invasive surgery is an integral component to ERAS and has dramatically improved post-operative outcomes. ERAS can be applicable to all surgical specialties with the core generic principles used together with added specialty specific interventions to allow for a comprehensive protocol, leading to improved clinical outcomes. Diffusion of ERAS into mainstream practice has been hindered due to minimal evidence to support individual facets and lack of method for monitoring and encouraging compliance. No single outcome measure fully captures recovery after surgery, rather multiple measures are necessary at each stage. More recently the pre-operative period has been the target of a number of strategies to improve clinical outcomes, described as prehabilitation. Innovation of technology in the surgical setting is also providing opportunities to overcome the challenges within ERAS, e.g., the use of wearable activity monitors to record information and provide feedback and motivation to patients peri-operatively. Both modernising ERAS and providing evidence for key strategies across specialties will ultimately lead to better, more reliable patient outcomes.

Preoperative carbohydrate loading in the enhanced recovery pathway

The enhanced recovery pathway is an evidence-based surgical care pathway that includes preoperative, perioperative and postoperative care and results in fewer complications and a shorter length of stay in hospital. There are a variety of elements associated with this pathway and one is the use of a preoperative carbohydrate-loading drink. The consumption of this drink, which is specifically designed to be safely consumed a few hours before surgery, is discussed with a review of the literature on the topic.

Best practice for perioperative management of patients with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC

Due to the significantly improved outcome and quality of life of patients with different tumor entities after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and HIPEC, there is an increasing number of centers performing CRS and HIPEC procedures. As this procedure is technically challenging with potential high morbidity and mortality, respectively, institutional experience also in the anesthetic and intensive care departments is essential for optimal treatment and prevention of adverse events. Clinical pathways have to be developed to achieve also good results in more comorbid patients with border line indications and extensive surgical procedures. The anesthesiologist has deal with relevant fluid, blood and protein losses, increased intraabdominal pressure, systemic hypo-/hyperthermia, and increased metabolic rate in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC. It is of utmost importance to maintain or restore an adequate volume by aggressive substitution of intravenous fluids, which counteracts the increased fluid loss and venous capacitance during this procedure. Supplementary thoracic epidural analgesia, non-invasive ventilation, and physiotherapy are recommended to guarantee adequate pain therapy and postoperative extubation as well as fast-track concepts. Advanced hemodynamic monitoring is essential to help the anesthesiologist picking up information about the real-time fluid status of the patient. Preoperative preconditioning is mandatory in patients scheduled for HIPEC surgery and will result in improved outcome. Postoperatively, volume status optimization, early nutritional support, sufficient anticoagulation, and point of care coagulation management are essential. This is an extensive update on all relevant topics for anesthetists and intensivists dealing with CRS and HIPEC.

Fast track program in liver resection: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

FT program (FT) is a multimodal approach used to enhance postoperative rehabilitation and accelerate recovery. It was 1st described in open heart surgery, then modified and applied successfully in colorectal surgery. FT program was described in liver resection for the 1st time in 2008. Although the program has become widely accepted, it has not yet been considered the standard of care in liver surgery.

OBJECTIVES

we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of using the FT program compared to the traditional care (TC), on the main clinical and surgical outcomes for patients who underwent elective liver resection.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Cochran databases were searched to identify eligible articles that compared FT with TC in elective liver resection to be included in this study. Subgroup meta-analysis between laparoscopic and open surgical approaches to liver resection was also conducted. Quality assessment was performed for all the included studies. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) were considered as a summary measure of evaluating the association in this meta-analysis for dichotomous and continuous data, respectively. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported for both measures. I was used to assess the heterogeneity across studies.

RESULTS

From 2008 to 2015, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 cohort studies were identified, including 394 and 416 patients in the FT and TC groups, respectively. The length of hospital stay (LoS) was markedly shortened in both the open and laparoscopic approaches within the FT program (P < 0.00001). The reduced LoS was accompanied by accelerated functional recovery (P = 0.0008) and decreased hospital costs, with no increase in readmission, morbidity, or mortality rates. Moreover, significant results were found within the FT group such as reduced operative time (P = 0.03), lower intensive care unit admission rate (P < 0.00001), early bowel opening (P ≤ 0.00001), and rapid normal diet restoration (P ≤ 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

FT program is safe, feasible, and can be applied successfully in liver resection. Future RCTs on controversial issues such as multimodal analgesia and adherence rate are needed. Specific FT guidelines should be developed for liver resection.

A call for new standard of care in perioperative gynecologic oncology practice: Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs aim to hasten functional recovery and improve postoperative outcomes. However, there is a paucity of data on ERAS programs in gynecologic surgery. We reviewed the published literature on ERAS programs in colorectal surgery, general gynecologic surgery, and gynecologic oncology surgery to evaluate the impact of such programs on outcomes, and to identify key elements in establishing a successful ERAS program. ERAS programs are associated with shorter length of hospital stay, a reduction in overall health care costs, and improvements in patient satisfaction. We suggest an ERAS program for gynecologic oncology practice involving preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative strategies including; preadmission counseling, avoidance of preoperative bowel preparation, use of opioid-sparing multimodal perioperative analgesia (including loco-regional analgesia), intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy (GDT), and use of minimally invasive surgical techniques with avoidance of routine use of nasogastric tube, drains and/or catheters. Postoperatively, it is important to encourage early feeding, early mobilization, timely removal of tubes and drains, if present, and function oriented multimodal analgesia regimens. Successful implementation of an ERAS program requires a multidisciplinary team effort and active participation of the patient in their goal-oriented functional recovery program. However, future outcome studies should evaluate the efficacy of an intervention within the pathway, include objective measures of symptom burden and control, study measures of functional recovery, and quantify outcomes of the program in relation to the rates of adherence to the key elements of care in gynecologic oncology such as oncologic outcomes and return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT).