Enhanced Recovery Pathway Benefits Patients Undergoing Nonelective Colorectal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to determine if an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP) can successfully be applied in nonelective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND

ERPs have been shown to reduce hospital length of stay (LOS), complications, and costs after elective colorectal surgery. Yet, little data exist regarding the benefits of ERPs in patients undergoing nonelective colorectal surgery. We hypothesized that ERP implementation in a nonelective colorectal surgery population is associated with decreased postoperative LOS.

METHODS

A prospectively-maintained database was used to identify consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery after emergency room (ER) or hospital transfer admissions over a period from 2 years before until 1 year after implementation of a comprehensive ERP. The primary endpoint was LOS. Secondary endpoints included total LOS [TLOS = postoperative LOS + LOS of readmission(s)], readmission rates, complication rates, 30-day mortality, and hospital costs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the relationship between ERP implementation and LOS.

RESULTS

We identified 269 pre-ERP and 135 ERP patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Admit source (ER 43.4% vs transfers 56.7%), Charlson comorbidity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, diagnosis (inflammatory bowel disease 45.8%, malignancy 19.6%, benign intestinal obstructions 10.4%, diverticulitis 9.4%, others 10.4%), and blood loss were comparable (P > 0.05) between the cohorts. Pre-ERP patients had a higher number of previous abdominal surgeries, whereas post-ERP patients had more laparoscopy and more compliance with ERP elements. ERP patients had a shorter postoperative LOS [6 (4, 10) vs 7 (5, 12) days; P = 0.0007]. Hospital costs were 13.4% lower (P = 0.004). Postoperative 30-day morbidity, mortality, and readmissions were comparable, although reoperation rate was higher in the ERP group. On multivariate analysis, ERP implementation and laparoscopy were the only modifiable variables independently associated with shorter LOS, whereas longer operative times and higher ASA classification were associated with longer LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing nonelective colorectal surgery after ER or hospital transfer admission benefit from the use of an ERP, demonstrating decreased LOS and costs without an increase in complications.

Treating pediatric colorectal patients in low and middle income settings: Creative adaptation to the resources available

Colorectal disease profiles for children in low- and middle-income settings (LMIC) are characterized by late presentation, increased complications and limited follow-up in many cases. There is a high prevalence of infectious conditions causing secondary colorectal disease such as Mycobacterium Tuberculosis(TB), Human Immunodeficiency Virus(HIV) and Human Papilloma Virus(HPV), which also impact the management of other primary colorectal conditions, such as wound-healing and intestinal anastomosis. Perineal trauma from sexual assault, motor vehicle or pedestrian accidents, burns, and traditional enemas are commonly encountered and may require adaptation of principles used in treatment of congenital anomalies such as Hirschsprung's disease and Anorectal Malformations for reconstruction. Endemic conditions in certain LMIC require further research to delineate underlying causes and optimize management, such as "African" degenerative visceral leiomyopathy, congenital pouch colon in the Indian subcontinent, and congenital H-type rectal fistulae prevalent in Asia. These unique disease profiles require creative adaptations of resources within poor healthcare infrastructure settings. These special challenges and pitfalls in colorectal care and complications of adverse socioeconomic conditions, are discussed.

Healthcare Spending and Performance of Specialty Hospitals: Nationwide Evidence from Colorectal-Anal Specialty Hospitals in South Korea

PURPOSE

Aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics and performance of colorectal-anal specialty vs. general hospitals for South Korean inpatients with colorectal-anal diseases, and assesses the short-term designation effect of the government's specialty hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nationwide all colorectal-anal disease inpatient claims (n=292158) for 2010-2012 were used to investigate length of stay and inpatient charges for surgical and medical procedures in specialty vs. general hospitals. The patients' claim data were matched to hospital data, and multi-level linear mixed models to account for clustering of patients within hospitals were performed.

RESULTS

Inpatient charges at colorectal-anal specialty hospitals were 27% greater per case and 92% greater per day than those at small general hospitals, but the average length of stay was 49% shorter. Colorectal-anal specialty hospitals had shorter length of stay and a higher inpatient charges per day for both surgical and medical procedures, but per case charges were not significantly different. A "specialty" designation effect also found that the colorectal-anal specialty hospitals may have consciously attempted to reduce their length of stay and inpatient charges. Both hospital and patient level factors had significant roles in determining length of stay and inpatient charges.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal-anal specialty hospitals have shorter length of stay and higher inpatient charges per day than small general hospitals. A "specialty" designation by government influence performance and healthcare spending of hospitals as well. In order to maintain prosperous specialty hospital system, investigation into additional factors that affect performance, such as quality of care and patient satisfaction should be carried out.

Colonic stent versus surgery for the management of acute malignant colonic obstruction: a decision analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute colonic obstruction because of advanced colonic malignancy is a surgical emergency.

AIM

To compare the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) vs. surgery for emergent management of acute malignant colonic obstruction in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer over a 6-month period.

METHODS

Decision analysis was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness and success of two competing strategies in a hypothetical patient with metastatic colon cancer presenting with acute, malignant colonic obstruction: (i) emergent colonic stent (SEMS cohort); (ii) emergent surgical resection followed by diversion (surgery cohort).

RESULTS

Self-expanding metal stent resulted in a success and a lower mortality rate when compared to surgery over a 6-month period. Colonic SEMS was also associated with a lower mean cost per patient (USD 27,225 vs. USD 57,398). Mortality in the surgery group was 25 times that of the SEMS cohort. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses identified SEMS as the dominant strategy.

CONCLUSION

Colonic stent insertion is more effective and less costly than surgery for the management of colonic obstruction in patients with metastatic colon cancer.

Outcomes of right and left colectomy at academic centers

Few studies have compared outcomes of right colectomy (RC) and left colectomy (LC) with respect to both benign and malignant disease. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of RC versus LC for benign and malignant disease using a national administrative database of academic medical centers. Using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision diagnosis and procedure codes, data was obtained from the University HealthSystem Consortium Clinical Data Base for patients that underwent RC and LC for benign and malignant disease between 2002 and 2006. The main outcomes compared were demographics, length of hospital stay, observed to expected in-hospital mortality, complications, 30-day readmission, and mean cost. There were a total of 27,483 patients; 12,971 patients (47.2%) underwent RC. Compared with LC for benign disease, RC was associated with a shorter length of stay, lower overall complications, lower wound infections, lower 30-day readmissions, and lower cost. Compared with LC for malignant disease, RC was associated with lower overall complications, lower wound infections, and lower cost. In this analysis of academic centers, RC was associated with a lower length of stay, lower morbidity, and lower cost when compared with LC for benign and malignant disease.

Colonic stent vs. emergency surgery for management of acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a decision analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute colonic obstruction because of malignancy is often a surgical emergency. Surgical decompression with colostomy with or without resection and eventual re-anastomosis is the traditional treatment of choice. Endoscopic colonic stent insertion effectively decompresses the obstructed colon, allowing for surgery to be performed electively. This study sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of colonic stent vs. surgery for emergent management of acute malignant colonic obstruction.

METHODS

Decision analysis was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of two competing strategies in a hypothetical patient presenting with acute, complete, malignant colonic obstruction: (1) emergent colonic stent followed by elective surgical resection and re-anastomosis; (2) emergent surgical resection followed by diversion (Hartmann's procedure) or primary anastomosis. Cost estimates were obtained from a third-party payer perspective. Primary outcome measures were mortality, stoma requirement, and total number of operative procedures.

RESULTS

Colonic stent resulted in 23% fewer operative procedures per patient (1.01 vs. 1.32 operations per patient), an 83% reduction in stoma requirement (7% vs. 43%), and lower procedure-related mortality (5% vs. 11%). Colonic stent was associated with a lower mean cost per patient ($45,709 vs. $49,941).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic stent insertion followed by elective surgery appears more effective and less costly than emergency surgery under base-case conditions. This finding remains robust over a wide range of assumptions for clinical inputs in sensitivity analysis. Our findings suggest that colonic stent insertion should be offered, whenever feasible, as a bridge to elective surgery in patients presenting with malignant colonic obstruction.

Randomized clinical trial comparing consultant-led or open access investigation for large bowel symptoms

BACKGROUND

Referral of patients with large bowel symptoms is common and increasing. Currently most of these referrals are assessed at an outpatient clinic to determine the need and priority for investigation.

METHODS

Over 21 months, 1131 patients referred by the general practitioner with large bowel symptoms were randomized. Patients in the consultant-led group were assessed by surgeons with a colorectal interest while those in the open access group underwent colonoscopy if they were 55 years or older and flexible sigmoidoscopy if younger.

RESULTS

The most common symptom among referred patients was rectal bleeding (69.1 per cent) followed by change in bowel habit (48.8 per cent) and abdominal pain (32.3 per cent). There was a significant trend (P < 0.001) for patients in the consultant-led to have more investigations, and more patients in this group had no investigations (P < 0.001). Despite this, the percentage of patients with colonic or other pathology diagnosed was the same in both groups, 63.6 per cent in the consultant-led group compared with 61.8 per cent in the open access group (P = 0.558). Likewise the percentage of patients with cancer or other significant pathology was similar in both groups (13.9 versus 15.4 per cent; P = 0.532). The mean(s.d.) time to diagnose cancer or other significant pathology was 55.1(39.2) days in the consultant-led group compared with 57.4(33.6) days in the open access group (P = 0.514). The cost per patient was almost pound 105 more for patients in the consultant-led group.

CONCLUSION

Patients referred by the general practitioner with large bowel symptoms should go directly to a properly managed and staffed open access large bowel investigation unit. This would enable most patients to have their investigations completed at one hospital attendance.

Prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery: the cost of ignoring the evidence

INTRODUCTION

Three strategies are used to prevent complications in colorectal surgery: heparin and antibiotics given perioperatively and abdominal drains placed intraoperatively. To investigate the appropriate and inappropriate use of these prophylactic techniques and to assess the costs associated with their inappropriate use, we studied patients who underwent elective colorectal procedures.

METHODS

We reviewed the charts of 103 patients operated on between April and December 1999 at a 519-bed tertiary care, teaching hospital in Edmonton, Alta. The procedures carried out were elective sigmoid resection, low anterior resection, left hemicolectomy, right hemicolectomy and total or subtotal colectomy for benign or malignant conditions. The data collected included patient age and sex, diagnosis, the operating surgeon, and the housestaff or surgeon writing the pre- and postoperative orders. Patients who required emergency colorectal surgery were excluded from the study. Antibiotic, heparin and drain prophylaxis was assessed and considered appropriate if prescribed according to the evidence or inappropriate if prescribed when not recommended.

RESULTS

Thirty-six of 98 patients had inappropriate heparin prophylaxis (5 of the 103 were excluded because they were already receiving heparin). Only 5 of 96 patients were treated appropriately with antibiotics preoperatively without postoperative doses (7 of the 103 were excluded due to intraoperative spillage with fecal contamination or an intra-abdominal abscess found intraoperatively); 95% of patients were inappropriately treated with antibiotics postoperatively. Half of all the patients had a drain inserted inappropriately for prophylaxis. On average, drains inserted inappropriately cost 30.40 dollars per patient, inappropriate antibiotic use cost 62.42 dollars per patient and inappropriate heparin use cost 89.30 dollars per patient. Preoperative orders were usually written by the staff surgeon, whereas postoperative orders were usually written by the resident or intern.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed considerable inappropriate use of heparin, antibiotic and drain prophylaxis. Considering the number of elective colorectal procedures performed annually, these inappropriately used strategies represent a substantial cost to the health care system. Improved education of surgeons and residents is needed to change to evidence-based practice habits.

Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening population

BACKGROUND & AIMS

To assess the prevalence and spectrum of extracolonic findings in a screening population undergoing computed tomography colonography (CTC), and to evaluate the short-term direct medical costs incurred from subsequent radiologic follow-up evaluation.

METHODS

Six hundred and eighty-one asymptomatic patients undergoing colonoscopy screening consented to a CTC examination. Extracolonic CT findings were classified into high, medium, and low importance. Clinical and radiologic follow-up, missed lesions, and outcomes were assessed by chart review (time interval, 410-1513 days; median, 913 days). Short-term direct medical costs of radiologic follow-up were determined based on Medicare 2002 reimbursement rates.

RESULTS

Extracolonic findings were found commonly. These were categorized as high clinical importance in 71 (10%) individuals, as medium importance in 183 individuals (27%), and as low importance in 341 individuals (50%). Subsequent medical or surgical interventions resulted from these findings in 9 of the 681 patients (1.3%). Costs of subsequent radiologic follow-up studies were calculated as $23,380.59 (average added costs per CTC examination $34.33).

CONCLUSIONS

CTC commonly detects extracolonic findings that can be considered clinically important when applied to an asymptomatic screening population. Although such incidental findings add benefit to the screening intervention, moderate incremental costs are incurred based on additional radiologic procedures generated during short-term follow-up.

Acute colonic obstruction: clinical aspects and cost-effectiveness of preoperative and palliative treatment with self-expanding metallic stents--a preliminary report

PURPOSE

Evaluation of clinical aspects and cost-effectiveness of use of self-expanding metallic stents in the treatment of acute colonic obstruction as either a preoperative procedure or palliation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirteen consecutive patients, aged 49-83 years (mean, 67 years), with clinical and radiologic signs of colonic obstruction were treated as a preoperative procedure in 10 patients and as a palliative treatment in three. A total of 16 self-expanding metallic stents (diameter, 16 mm; length fully expanded, 56 mm) were implanted with combined fluoroscopic and endoscopic guidance. The costs (hospitalization, intensive care unit, stent placement, and surgery) were compared with costs for 13 surgically treated patients at the same hospital.

RESULTS

Stent placement was successful in 12 of the 13 patients; all recovered from mechanical obstruction, and single-stage surgery was possible in eight of nine patients treated preoperatively. One very narrow stenosis could not be passed. Dysfunction occurred in two long stenoses after 5 days with reocclusion 2 and 6 weeks, respectively, after stent placement. A cost reduction of 19.7% was observed as a result of shorter hospitalization and a lower complication rate. In patients with colon cancer in the preoperative treatment group, the cost reduction increased to 28.8%.

CONCLUSION

Metallic stent placement in patients with acute colonic obstruction was a minimally invasive and cost-effective preoperative procedure that allowed single-stage surgery in most cases. Stent placement for palliation should be limited to patient with special indications.

[Laparoscopic colorectal surgery--attempt at evaluating a new technology]

The aim of this study was to access the importance of the laparoscopic colorectal resection. Of 131 patients 80 were operated on laparoscopically. The conversion rate was 14% (13/93). A total of 47 patients suffered from cancer. Curative resection was performed in 41 patients (87%). For comparison, 48 patients who underwent open resection were used. The complication rate was lower after laparoscopy and no reoperation was performed. Patients recovered quicker and their first oral food intake and bowel movement were earlier. Hospital stay was shorter (15.3 vs. 8.1 days), and pain at rest and in motion was significantly reduced. Equal numbers of mesenteric lymph nodes were retrieved; adequate margins of resection could be obtained and the length of resected bowel did not differ. No port metastases were observed. Reduced morbidity, reduced hospital stay, reduced abdominal pain, quicker reconvalescence, and reduced overall health care costs are strong arguments in favor of laparoscopic colectomy.

Elective conventional colectomy in the era of laparoscopic surgery

Laparoscopic surgery, since its introduction into the general surgery, has reduced hospital stay. Can lessons learned from laparoscopic surgery about aggressive postoperative care be applied to elective conventional colectomy? Between August 1994 and February 1995, a prospective study was conducted on 24 consecutive patients undergoing elective conventional colectomy with primary anastomosis. A comparison of 30 consecutive patients in the 7 months immediately before this study were used as a historical control group. Both groups were comparable in age, indications for operation, type of operation, and operative time. The protocol consisted of an outpatient bowel prep, hospital admission on day of surgery, and intravenous metoclopramide starting before the operation and continued every 6 hours with diet started at 24 hours. Patients were discharged on regular diet after a bowel movement and were continued on oral metoclopramide for a total of 7 days. Hospital stay was reduced from 8 days (range 4-19 days) to 4 days (range 2-7 days) on the protocol P < 0.001). Hospital charges were also reduced by 20 per cent (from $18,450 to $14,586) (P = 0.066). Complication rate and postoperative emergency room visits as a measure of quality of care did not differ between the two groups. By implementing this protocol, hospital costs and length of stay for elective conventional colectomy were reduced without compromising patient care.

Cost-effectiveness of blood transfusion and white cell reduction in elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of white cell (WBC)-reduced blood in elective colorectal surgery appears to reduce the frequency of postoperative infection. The question to be addressed is whether the cost:benefit ratio justifies the recommendation that WBC-reduced blood should be used for all colorectal surgery.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients admitted for elective colorectal surgery (n = 197) were randomly assigned to receive transfusion consisting of whole blood or WBC-reduced whole blood. Postoperative complications, postoperative stay, and hospital charges were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients received WBC-reduced whole blood, 56 received unfiltered whole blood, and 93 received no transfusion. Postoperative infections were significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the group that received unfiltered whole blood. That group also had longer hospital stays: 17 days as compared to stays of 10 and 11 days for the group receiving no transfusion and the group receiving filtered whole blood transfusions, respectively (p < 0.01). The total hospital cost per patient receiving unfiltered whole blood was $12,347, as compared to $7,867 for those who received WBC-reduced whole blood and $7,030 for those who received no transfusion.

CONCLUSION

The use of WBC-reduced whole blood transfusions in elective colorectal surgery significantly reduces the frequency of postoperative infection, the length of hospital stay, and the total hospital charges for patients needing blood transfusion.

The temporal use of diagnostic tests of the colon: some results for fee-for-service medicine in Australia

In the context of rising health expenditures it is relevant to consider the behavior of those who, in large part, determine what medical procedures are performed on patients. The purpose of this paper is to describe the utilization of diagnostic tests of the colon in Australia. The study is restricted to private medical practitioners operating on a fee-for-service basis. Diagnosis of the gastrointestinal tract is of some interest because the new technology of fiber optic endoscopy has provided an alternative means of diagnosing diseases or conditions. The results presented here indicate rising per capita utilization rates for both the "new" technology and the "old" techniques of barium enema radiology and sigmoidoscopy. There is no evidence of the "new" technology displacing the "old" in terms of per capita use. The data may be consistent with the hypothesis that process innovations in medicine do not displace alternative products: rather they are "added on" to the existing products.

Colonoscopy and the barium enema: a radiologic viewpoint

Adherents of colonoscopy are recommending that it replace the radiologic examination as the initial diagnostic study of the colon. We present the radiologic view, supporting the barium enema as a more practical approach to initial diagnostic evaluation. The radiologic examination is an equally reliable, less costly, and much safer method for detecting colonic disease.

The barium enema; evidence for proper utilization

A group of 1,041 patients was studied in an attempt to identify symptoms, signs, or laboratory findings (disease indicators) associated with either a high or low yield of abnormal barium enemas. A specific search was undertaken for subgroups with one or more statistically significant indicators of large bowel disease. If enemas were performed only for statistically significant indicators (fever, positive stool benzidine, rectal or abdominal mass, low hematocrit) or indicators of clinical importance (weight loss, constipation, diarrhea, etc.) only 13% of examinations would be eliminated. At the same time, however, 10% of patients with gastrointestinal disease would be missed.

The cost of misadventures in colonic surgery. A model for the analysis of adverse outcomes in standard procedures

Analysis revealed an impressive number of patients transferred to intensive care at the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital after misadventures in standard medical and surgical procedures. The model explored here is that of colon surgery, a therapy standardized for decades. The courses of sixteen patients were studied, wherein adverse outcomes appeared to have been preventable. Failure to diagnose colonic leakage and failure to provide colostomy (or to do so safely) were the major underlying causes. Nephrotoxic antibiotics and immunosuppression were sometimes in the background. Nine patients died, all with severe sepsis. Multiple organ failure occurred in the majority of cases. The mortality was tenfold, the cost sevenfold, and the length of hospitalization fourfold that expected after uneventful operation. Current interest in cost-benefit analysis should be broadened standard medical and surgical procedures. Litigious potential should not be allowed to impede such analyses.