Actionable Factors Fostering Health valUe Generation and Scalability of Prehabilitation: A Prospective Cohort Study

How much does it cost to be fit for operation? The economics of prehabilitation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prehabilitation before elective surgery can include physical, nutritional, and psychological interventions or a combination of these to allow patients to return postoperatively to baseline status as soon as possible. The purpose of this review is to analyse the current date related to the cost-effectiveness of such programs.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current literature regarding the economics of prehabilitation is limited. However, such programs have been mainly associated with either a reduction in total healthcare related costs or no increase.

SUMMARY

Prehabilitation before elective surgery has been shown to minimize the periprocedural complications and optimization of short term follow up after surgical procedures. Recent studies included cost analysis, either based on hospital accounting data or on estimates costs. The healthcare cost was mainly reduced by shortening the number of hospitalization day. Other factors included length of ICU stay, place of the prehabilitation program (in-hospital vs. home-based) and compliance to the program.

The impact of prehabilitation on outcomes in frail and high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Prehabilitation comprises multidisciplinary preoperative interventions including exercise, nutritional optimisation and psychological preparation aimed at improving surgical outcomes. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the impact of prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes in frail and high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Embase, Medline, CINAHAL and Cochrane databases were searched from January 2010 to January 2023 for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating unimodal (exercise) or multimodal prehabilitation programmes. Meta-analysis was limited to length of stay (primary end point), severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥ Grade 3) and the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). The analysis was performed using RevMan v5.4 software.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (6 RCTs, 10 observational) reporting on 3339 patients (1468 prehabilitation group, 1871 control group) were included. The median (interquartile range) age was 74.0 (71.0-78.4) years. Multimodal prehabilitation was applied in fifteen studies and unimodal in one. Meta-analysis of nine studies showed a reduction in hospital length of stay (weighted mean difference -1.07 days, 95 % CI -1.60 to -0.53 days, P < 0.0001, I2 = 19 %). Ten studies addressed severe complications and a meta-analysis suggested a decline in occurrence by up to 44 % (odds ratio 0.56, 95 % CI 0.37 to 0.82, P < 0.004, I2 = 51 %). Four studies provided data on preoperative 6MWT. The pooled weighted mean difference was 40.1 m (95 % CI 32.7 to 47.6 m, P < 0.00001, I2 = 24 %), favouring prehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

Given the significant impact on shortening length of stay and reducing severe complications, prehabilitation should be encouraged in frail, older and high-risk adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Prehabilitation before general surgery: Worth the effort?

Prehabilitation, or interventions before surgery aimed at improving preoperative health and postoperative outcomes, has various forms. Although it may confer benefit to patients undergoing general surgery, this is not certain. Furthermore, although it may yield a net monetary gain, it is also likely to require substantial monetary and non-monetary investment. The impact of prehabilitation is highly variable and dependent on multiple factors. Physical function and pulmonary outcomes are likely to be improved by most forms of prehabilitation involving physical and multimodal exercise programmes. However, other surgical outcomes have demonstrated mixed results from prehabilitation. Within this issue, the measures used for evaluating baseline patient biopsychosocial health are important, and collecting sufficient data to accurately inform patient-centred prehabilitation programmes is only possible through thorough clinical and laboratory investigation and synthesised metrics such as cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Although a multimodal approach to prehabilitation is the current gold standard, societal factors may affect engagement with programmes that require a significant in-person activity. However, this is weighed against the substantial financial and non-financial investment that accompanies many programmes. The overall effectiveness and optimal mode of intervention across the discipline of general surgery remains unclear, and further research is needed to prove prehabilitation's full worth.

Advances in the Management of Acute Postsurgical Pain: A Review

Despite the millions of surgeries performed every year around the world, postoperative pain remains prevalent and is often addressed with inadequate or suboptimal treatments. Chronic postsurgical pain is surprisingly prevalent, and its rate varies with the type of surgery, as well as with certain patient characteristics. Thus, better clinical training is needed as well as patient education. As pain can be caused by more than one mechanism, multimodal or balanced postsurgical analgesia is appropriate. Pharmacological agents such as opioid and nonopioid pain relievers, as well as adjuvants and nonpharmacologic approaches, can be combined to provide better and opioid-sparing pain relief. Many specialty societies have guidelines for postoperative pain management that emphasize multimodal postoperative analgesia. These guidelines are particularly helpful when dealing with special populations such as pregnant patients or infants and children. Pediatric pain control, in particular, can be challenging as patients may be unable to communicate their pain levels. A variety of validated assessment tools are available for diagnosis. Related to therapy, most guidelines agree on the fact that codeine should be used with extreme caution in pediatric patients as some may be "rapid metabolizers" and its use may be life-threatening. Prehabilitation is a preoperative approach that prepares patients in advance of elective surgery with conditioning exercises and other interventions to optimize their health. Prehabilitation may have aerobic, strength-training, nutritional, and counseling components. Logistical considerations and degree of patient adherence represent barriers to effective prehabilitation programs. Notwithstanding all this, acute postoperative pain represents a clinical challenge that has not yet been well addressed.

Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: a systematic review of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation aims at enhancing patients' functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs' results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect.

RESULTS

We included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost-benefit analyses, 12 cost-consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

We found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020182813.

A Practice-Proven Adaptive Case Management Approach for Innovative Health Care Services (Health Circuit): Cluster Randomized Clinical Pilot and Descriptive Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Digital health tools may facilitate the continuity of care. Enhancement of digital aid is imperative to prevent information gaps or redundancies, as well as to facilitate support of flexible care plans.

OBJECTIVE

The study presents Health Circuit, an adaptive case management approach that empowers health care professionals and patients to implement personalized evidence-based interventions, thanks to dynamic communication channels and patient-centered service workflows; analyze the health care impact; and determine its usability and acceptability among health care professionals and patients.

METHODS

From September 2019 to March 2020, the health impact, usability (measured with the system usability scale; SUS), and acceptability (measured with the net promoter score; NPS) of an initial prototype of Health Circuit were tested in a cluster randomized clinical pilot (n=100) in patients with high risk for hospitalization (study 1). From July 2020 to July 2021, a premarket pilot study of usability (with the SUS) and acceptability (with the NPS) was conducted among 104 high-risk patients undergoing prehabilitation before major surgery (study 2).

RESULTS

In study 1, Health Circuit resulted in a reduction of emergency room visits (4/7, 13% vs 7/16, 44%), enhanced patients' empowerment (P<.001) and showed good acceptability and usability scores (NPS: 31; SUS: 54/100). In study 2, the NPS was 40 and the SUS was 85/100. The acceptance rate was also high (mean score of 8.4/10).

CONCLUSIONS

Health Circuit showed potential for health care value generation and good acceptability and usability despite being a prototype system, prompting the need for testing a completed system in real-world scenarios.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04056663; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04056663.

Cost Analysis of a Digital Multimodal Cancer Prehabilitation

INTRODUCTION

There is growing evidence that prehabilitation programmes effectively improve the physical and psychological conditions of cancer patients awaiting treatment. During the pandemic, people with cancer were classed as vulnerable. To reduce risk to this population Kent and Medway Prehabilitation service transformed into a TeleHealth format. The aim of this study is to assess the impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the costs of a digital multimodal prehabilitation programme.

METHODS

HRQoL was measured with the EQ-5D and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated. Costs of the prehabilitation service and inpatient care were calculated. Comparisons were made between different levels of prehabilitation received.

RESULTS

A sample of 192 individuals was included in the study Mean HRQoL improved from 69.53 at baseline to 85.71 post-rehabilitation, a 23% increase. For each additional week of prehabilitation care in cancer patients, the model predicts that the total QALYS increase by 0.02, when baseline utility is held constant.

CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation is associated with improved HRQoL and QALYs. Our model of a multimodal digital prehabilitation program can be beneficial for patients and reduce costs for healthcare facilities even when the patients attend only a few sessions.

Perioperative Nursing as the Guiding Thread of a Prehabilitation Program

Multimodal preoperative prehabilitation has been shown to be effective in improving the functional capacity of cancer patients, reducing postoperative complications and the length of hospital and ICU stay after surgery. The availability of prehabilitation units that gather all the professionals involved in patient care facilitates the development of integrated and patient-centered multimodal prehabilitation programs, as well as patient adherence. This article describes the process of creating a prehabilitation unit in our center and the role of perioperative nursing. Initially, the project was launched with the performance of a research study on prehabilitation for gastrointestinal cancer surgery. The results of this study encouraged us to continue the implementation of the unit. Progressively, multimodal prehabilitation programs focusing on each type of patient and surgery were developed. Currently, our prehabilitation unit is a care unit that has its own gym, which allows supervised training of cancer patients prior to surgery. Likewise, the evolution of perioperative nursing in the unit is described: from collaboration and assistance in the integral evaluation of the patient at the beginning to current work as a case manager; a task that has proven extremely important for the comprehensive and continuous care of the patient.