Alvimopan Is Associated With a Reduction in Length of Stay and Hospital Costs for Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy

An outline of the management and prevention of postoperative ileus: A review

Postoperative ileus (POI) is a prevalent surgical complication, which results in prolonged hospitalization, patient distress, and substantial economic burden. The literature aims to present a brief outline of interventions for preventing and treating POI post-surgery. Data from 2014 to 2023 were gathered from reputable sources like PubMed, PubMed Central, Google Scholar, Research Gate, and Science Direct. Inclusion criteria focused on studies exploring innovative treatments and prevention strategies for POI, using keywords such as novel POI treatments, non-pharmacological prevention, POI incidence rates, POI management, and risk factors. The findings revealed that integration of preventive measures such as coffee consumption, chewing gum, probiotics, and use of dikenchuto within enhanced recovery programs has significantly reduced both the frequency and duration of POI, without any adverse effects, with minimally invasive surgical approaches showing promise as an additional preventive strategy. While treatment options such as alvimopan, NSAIDs, and acupuncture have demonstrated efficacy, the use of lidocaine has raised concerns due to associated adverse effects. The ongoing exploration of novel therapeutic strategies such as targeting the mast cells, vagal nerve stimulation and tight junction protein, and prokinetic-mediated instigation of the cholinergic anti-inflammatory trail not only holds promise for enhanced treatment but also deepens the understanding of intricate cellular and molecular pathways underlying POI. POI presents a complex challenge in various surgical specialties, necessitating a multifaceted management approach. The integration of preventive and treatment measures within enhanced recovery programs has significantly reduced POI frequency and duration.

Cost-Effectiveness and Economic Impact of Bladder Cancer Management: An Updated Review of the Literature

Bladder cancer remains one of the costliest malignancies to manage. We provide a narrative review of literature assessing the economic burden and cost-effectiveness of bladder cancer treatment and surveillance. This is an update to a previous review and focuses on data published within the past 10 years. We queried PubMed and MEDLINE for all bladder cancer cost-related literature between 2013 and 2023. After initial screening, 117 abstracts were identified, 50 of which were selected for inclusion in our review. Management of disease recurrence and treatment complications contributes significantly to the high cost of care. High-value interventions are therefore treatments that improve recurrence-free and overall survival at minimal additional toxicity. De-escalation of surveillance and diagnostic interventions may help to reduce costs in this space without compromising oncologic control. The persistently rising cost of novel cancer drugs undermines their value when only modest gains in efficacy are observed. Multiple cost-effectiveness analyses have been published and are useful for contextualizing the cost, efficacy, and impact on quality of life that interventions have in this population. Further cost-effectiveness work is needed to better characterize the impact that treatment costs have on patients' financial well-being and quality of life.

The Effects of Surgical Approaches and Enhanced Recovery Protocols on the Cost Effectiveness of Radical Cystectomy

Enhanced recovery protocols and robotic approaches to radical cystectomy are known to reduce perioperative complications; however, the most cost-effective strategy is unknown. We aim to assess the cost effectiveness of radical cystectomy with different surgical techniques and perioperative treatment protocols. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing open radical cystectomy (ORC), robotic assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) using extracorporeal (ECUD) or intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD) and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols. Operative time, transfusion, complication, Ileus, length of stay and re-admission rates were extracted. US costs for surgery, treatment, hospitalization and complications were obtained from the literature. Israeli costs were obtained from hospital administrative data. Two cost effectiveness models (US and Israel) were developed. The two most cost-effective strategies in both models were ORC with ERAS and RARC with ICUD and ERAS. RARC with ERAS produced the two most effective strategies with ICUD being dominant over ECUD. All strategies implementing the ERAS protocol were more effective than their parallel non-ERAS strategies. RARC with ICUD and ERAS is cost effective compared to ORC. ERAS protocol improves treatment effectiveness and lowers overall costs. ICUD was shown to be more effective and less costly in comparison to ECUD.

Updates on enhanced recovery after surgery for radical cystectomy

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal pathway that provides evidence-based guidance for improving perioperative care and outcomes in patients undergoing surgery. In 2013, the ERAS society released its original guidelines for radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer (BC), adopting much of its supporting data from colorectal literature. In the last decade, growing interest in ERAS has increased RC-specific ERAS research, including prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Collective data suggest ERAS contributes to improved complication rates, decreased hospital length-of-stay, and/or time to bowel recovery. Various institutions have adopted modified versions of the ERAS pathway, yet there remains a lack of consensus on the efficacy of specific ERAS items and standardization of the protocol. In this review, we summarize updated evidence and practice patterns of ERAS pathways for RC since the introduction of the original 2013 guidelines. Novel target interventions, including use of immunonutrition, prehabilitation, alvimopan, and methods of local analgesia are reviewed. Finally, we discuss barriers to implementing and future steps in advancing the ERAS movement.

The association of alvimopan treatment with postoperative outcomes after abdominal surgery: A systematic review across different surgical procedures and contexts of perioperative care

BACKGROUND

Alvimopan is a Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment to accelerate gastrointestinal recovery after abdominal surgery; however, benefits may vary across different procedures and contexts of care. The purpose of this study is to summarize the evidence regarding the effect of alvimopan on postoperative outcomes after abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Major databases (Medline, Embase, Biosis, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched for randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies comparing alvimopan versus control. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool 2.0 (for randomized controlled trials) and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies-of Intervention tool (for nonrandomized studies). Results were appraised descriptively as heterogeneity in reporting and risk of bias hindered meta-analysis. Quality of evidence across different surgical procedures and contexts of care (ie, open versus minimally invasive surgery, traditional care versus enhanced recovery pathway) was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials and 35 nonrandomized studies were identified. Evidence of low to moderate certainty supports that alvimopan reduces length of stay and improves gastrointestinal recovery after open bowel resection and open radical cystectomy. Limited evidence supports alvimopan for surgeries not listed in Food and Drug Administration labels (ie, total abdominal hysterectomy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection). Similar effects were observed in traditional and enhanced recovery pathway settings, but enhanced recovery pathway elements varied across studies. There is very low certainty of evidence supporting alvimopan for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supports that alvimopan improves outcomes after open bowel resection and open radical cystectomy. Benefits for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery and treated in contemporary enhanced recovery pathway settings remain uncertain. These findings contribute important new knowledge to inform evidence-based alvimopan prescribing.