Comprehensive economic evaluation of enhanced recovery after surgery in hepatectomy

Adoption of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol Increases Cost of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Does not Improve Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been shown to reduce length of stay (LOS) and complications. The impact of ERAS protocols on the cost of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) has not been studied.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC from 2016-2022 at a single quaternary center. Propensity score matching was used to create pre-and post-ERAS cohorts. Cost, overall and serious complications, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) between the two cohorts were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables and χ2 test for categorical variables.

RESULTS

Our final matched cohort consisted of 100 patients, with 50 patients in both the pre- and post-ERAS groups. After adjusting for patient complexity and inflation, the median total cost [$75,932 ($67,166-102,645) versus $92,992 ($80,720-116,710), p = 0.02] and operating room cost [$26,817 ($23,378-33,121) versus $34,434 ($28,085-$41,379), p < 0.001] were significantly higher in the post-ERAS cohort. Overall morbidity (n = 22, 44% versus n = 17, 34%, p = 0.40) and ICU length of stay [2 days (IQR 1-3) versus 2 days (IQR 1-4), p = 0.70] were similar between the two cohorts. A total cost increase of $22,393 [SE $13,047, 95% CI (-$3178 to $47,965), p = 0.086] was estimated after implementation of ERAS, with operating room cost significantly contributing to this increase [$8419, SE $1628, 95% CI ($5228-11,609), p < 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

CRS-HIPEC ERAS protocols were associated with higher total costs due to increased operating room costs at a single institution. There was no significant difference in ICU LOS and complications after the implementation of the ERAS protocol.

Intrathecal ropivacaine versus bupivacaine in a non-obstetric population- A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background and Aims

Intrathecal bupivacaine is used for anaesthesia and analgesia but is associated with hypotension. Ropivacaine is an alternative drug that may have fewer cardiotoxic and neurotoxic events. This meta-analysis investigated whether intrathecal ropivacaine is associated with reduced hypotension as compared to bupivacaine.

Methods

The meta-analysis is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The databases PubMed, Cinahl Plus, Google Scholar, and Scopus were searched, and papers from January 1980 to January 2023 were deemed eligible and filtered using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension. Secondary outcomes were the duration of sensory block, duration of motor block, incidence of bradycardia, ephedrine usage, and duration of analgesia. Jadad scores were used to evaluate the quality of the papers. RevMan statistical software® utilised inverse variance and a random effect model to calculate the standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals for continuous variables and the Mantel-Haenszel test and the random effect model to calculate the odds ratio for dichotomous variables.

Results

Thirty-three papers, including 2475 patients in total, were included. The Jadad score was between 1 and 5. The incidence of hypotension was significantly higher with intrathecal bupivacaine than with ropivacaine (P = 0.02). The duration of sensory block (P < 0.001) and motor block (P < 0.001) was prolonged with intrathecal bupivacaine. The duration of analgesia favoured intrathecal bupivacaine (P = 0.003).

Conclusion

Intrathecal ropivacaine has a reduced incidence of hypotension and a reduced duration of sensory block compared to bupivacaine.

State of the art: Proceedings of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery Summit

Despite the benefits established for multiple surgical specialties, enhanced recovery after surgery has been underused in cardiac surgery. A cardiac enhanced recovery after surgery summit was convened at the 102nd American Association for Thoracic Surgery annual meeting in May 2022 for experts to convey key enhanced recovery after surgery concepts, best practices, and applicable results for cardiac surgery. Topics included implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery, prehabilitation and nutrition, rigid sternal fixation, goal-directed therapy, and multimodal pain management.

Cost-Effectiveness of Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms with a Novel Perioperative Protocol

BACKGROUND

In 2015, a novel perioperative protocol (nPOP), comprising of 19 evidence-based interventions, was adopted as a standard practice for open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) at the Humanitas Clinical and Research Center (Milan, Italy). Its implementation translated into lower complication rates, faster ambulation and return of bowel function, better nausea/vomiting and pain control, and, consequently, a shorter length of hospital stay. Because value of a patient's care cycle can be defined as clinical outcomes relative to costs, we aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of nPOP compared to the previously implemented protocols.

METHODS

Three groups were identified and retrospectively analyzed: (A) 66 patients (September 2007 to March 2009) treated according to the traditional protocol; (B) 225 patients (April 2009 to March 2015) treated in line with a transitional protocol, incorporating 5 perioperative interventions; and (C) 103 patients (April 2015 to February 2019) treated according to nPOP. For each group a monetary value of required clinical resources and the actual total cost per patient from admission to discharge were determined. The following were analyzed (including nurse and anesthesiologist time): diagnostic tests, medications, materials, operating time, surgical team time, blood transfusion, ward stay, and intensive care unit stay. Two indicators of effectiveness were determined based on the postoperative outcomes: complication-free incidents and relative shortening of hospitalization time. A cost (€) of an improvement in effectiveness (%) was calculated.

RESULTS

Alongside enhancement of clinical outcomes, nPOP constituted the cheapest approach. It consumed the least human and material resources, resulting in the direct reduction in the overall clinical cost per patient. The length-of-stay variable provided the largest reduction in total costs. The actual total clinical cost per patient in Group C was 26% lower than in Group A (4,437€ vs. 6,005€) and 39% lower than in Group B (4,437€ vs. 7,305€). Every unit of enhancement of clinical outcomes was 2.43 times more expensive for the traditional protocol and 2.23 times more costly for the transitional protocol compared to nPOP, making it the most cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The nPOP for AAA open repair is not inferior to other perioperative protocols while allowing for efficient utilization of limited hospital resources, thus creating a high social value. The proposed methods for cost-effectiveness analysis are easily reproducible and therefore can be applied in future projects ranging from a micro- to a macro-economic scale.