Hübner, Martin

The present review discusses restrictive perioperative fluid protocols within enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways. Standardized definitions of a restrictive or liberal fluid regimen are lacking since they depend on conflicting evidence, institutional protocols, and personal preferences. Challenges related to restrictive fluid protocols are related to proper patient selection within standardized ERAS protocols. On the other hand, invasive goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) is reserved for more challenging disease presentations and polymorbid and frail patients. While the perfusion rate (mL/kg/h) appears less predictive for postoperative outcomes, the authors identified critical thresholds related to total intravenous fluids and weight gain. These thresholds are discussed within the available evidence. The authors aim to introduce their institutional approach to standardized practice.

AbstractBackgroundThis is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care.MethodsExperts in management of the high‐risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations.ResultsComponents of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process.ConclusionsThese guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end‐of‐life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high‐risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Abstract Background This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra‐ and postoperative aspects of care. Methods Experts in aspects of management of high‐risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS ® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS ® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. Results Twenty‐three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. Conclusions These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS ® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high‐risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

The present large scale study aimed to assess the prevalence and consequences of malnutrition, based on clinical assessment (body mass index and preoperative weight loss) and severe hypoalbuminemia (<3.1 g/L), in a representative US cohort undergoing IBD surgery. The American College of Surgeons National Quality improvement program (ACS-NSQIP) Public User Files (PUF) between 2005 and 2018 were assessed. A total of 25,431 patients were identified. Of those, 6560 (25.8%) patients had severe hypoalbuminemia, 380 (1.5%) patients met ESPEN 2 criteria (≥10% weight loss over 6 months PLUS BMI < 20 kg/m2 in patients <70 years OR BMI < 22 kg/m2 in patients ≥70 years), and 671 (2.6%) patients met both criteria (severe hypoalbuminemia and ESPEN 2). Patients who presented with malnutrition according to any of the three definitions had higher rates of overall, minor, major, surgical, and medical complications, longer LOS, higher mortality and higher rates of readmission and reoperation. The simple clinical assessment of malnutrition based on BMI and weight loss only, considerably underestimates its true prevalence of up to 50% in surgical IBD patients and calls for dedicated nutritional assessment.

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the implementation of an intraoperative standardized surgical site infection (SSI) prevention bundle. Methods: The multimodal, evidence-based care bundle included nine intraoperative items (antibiotic type, timing, and re-dosing; disinfection; induction temperature control > 36.5°; glove change; intra-cavity lavage; wound protection; and closure strategy). The bundle was applied to all consecutive patients undergoing colonic resections. The primary outcome, SSI, was independently assessed by the National Infection Surveillance Committee for up to 30 postoperative days. A historical, institutional pre-implementation control group (2012–2017) with an identical methodology was used for comparison. Findings: In total, 1516 patients were included, of which 1256 (82.8%) were in the control group and 260 (17.2%) were in the post-implementation group. After 2:1 propensity score matching, the groups were similar for all items (p > 0.05). Overall compliance with the care bundle was 77% (IQR 77–88). The lowest compliance rates were observed for temperature control (53% overall), intra-cavity lavage (64% overall), and wound protection and closure (68% and 63% in the SSI group, respectively). Surgical site infections were reported in 58 patients (22.2%) vs. 21.4% in the control group (p = 0.79). Infection rates were comparable throughout the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) categories: superficial, 12 patients (4.5%) vs. 4.2%, p = 0.82; deep incisional, 10 patients (3.7%) vs. 5.1%, p = 0.34; organ space, 36 (14%) vs. 12.4%, p = 0.48. After propensity score matching, rates remained comparable throughout all comparisons (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: The implementation of an intraoperative standardized care bundle had no impact on SSI rates. This may be explained by insufficient compliance with the individual measures.

Abstract Background Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs for a large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high‐risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach. Methods Experts in aspects of management of the high‐risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non‐emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1—Preoperative Care and Part 2—Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1. Results Twelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds. Conclusions These guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high‐risk patients.

Abstract Objectives Corona virus-induced disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has globally affected the surgical treatment of cancer patients and has challenged the ethical principles of surgical oncologists around the world. Not only treatment but also diagnosis and follow-up have been disrupted. Methods An online survey was sent through Twitter and by the surgical societies worldwide. The survey consisted of 29 closed-ended questions and was conducted over a period of 24 days beginning in March 26, 2020. Results Overall, 394 surgical oncologists from 41 different countries answered the questionnaire. The predominant guiding principle was “saving lives” 240 (62%), and the different aspects of lock-down found hence large support (mean 7.1–9.3 out of 10). Shut-down of elective surgery and modification of cancer care found a mean support of 7.0 ± 3.0 and 5.8 ± 3.1, respectively. Modification of cancer care longer than two weeks was considered unacceptable to 114 (29%) responders. Hundred and fifty six (40%) and 138 (36%) expect “return to normal” beyond six months for surgical practice and cancer care, respectively. Conclusions Surgical oncologists show strong and long-lasting support for lock-down measures aiming to save lives. The impact of the pandemic on surgical oncology is perceived controversially, but the majority was forced already now to accept what is inacceptable for many of their colleagues.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmission rate is an important quality metric and has been recognized as a key measure of hospital value-based purchasing programs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the risk factors for hospital readmission with a focus on potentially preventable early readmissions within 48 hours of discharge. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary academic facility with a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing elective major colorectal resections between 2011 and 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariable and multivariable risk factors for overall and early (<48 hours) readmissions were identified. Specific surgical and medical reasons for readmission were compared between early and late readmissions. RESULTS: In total, 526 of 4204 patients (12.5%) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Independent risk factors were ASA score (≥3; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1–2), excess perioperative weight gain (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3–2.3), ileostomy (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1–2), and transfusion (OR, 2; 95% CI, 1.4–3), or reoperation (OR, 11.4; 95% CI, 7.4–17.5) during the index stay. No potentially preventable risk factor for early readmission (128 patients, 24.3% of all readmissions, 3% of total cohort) was identified, and index hospital stay of ≤3 days was not associated with increased readmission (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7–1.2). Although ileus and small-bowel obstruction (early: 43.8% vs late: 15.5%, p < 0.001) were leading causes for early readmissions, deep infections (3.9% vs 16.3%, p < 0.001) and acute kidney injury (0% vs 5%, p = 0.006) were mainly observed during readmissions after 48 hours. LIMITATIONS: Risk of underreporting due to loss of follow-up and the potential co-occurrence of complications were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Early hospital readmission was mainly due to ileus or bowel obstruction, whereas late readmissions were related to deep infections and acute kidney injury. A suspicious attitude toward potential ileus-related symptoms before discharge and dedicated education for ostomy patients are important. A short index hospital stay was not associated with increased readmission rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B237. REINGRESOS DENTRO DE LAS 48 HORAS POSTERIORES AL ALTA: RAZONES, FACTORES DE RIESGO Y POSIBLES MEJORAS ANTECEDENTES: La tasa de reingreso hospitalario es una métrica de calidad importante y ha sido reconocida como una medida clave de los programas hospitalarios de compras basadas en el valor. OBJETIVO: Evaluar los factores de riesgo para el reingreso hospitalario con énfasis en reingresos tempranos potencialmente prevenibles dentro de las 48 horas posteriores al alta. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ESCENARIO: Institución académica terciaria con programa de recuperación mejorada estandarizado. PACIENTES: Pacientes consecutivos sometidos a resecciones colorrectales mayores electivas entre 2011 y 2016. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Se identificaron factores de riesgo uni y multivariables para reingresos totales y tempranos (<48 horas). Se compararon razones médicas y quirúrgicas específicas para el reingreso entre reingresos tempranos y tardíos. RESULTADOS: En total, 526/4204 pacientes (12,5%) fueron readmitidos dentro de los 30 días posteriores al alta. Los factores de riesgo independientes fueron puntuación ASA (≥3, OR 1.5; IC 95% 1.1–2), aumento de peso perioperatorio excesivo (OR 1.7; IC 95% 1.3–2.3), ileostomía (OR 1.4, IC 95%: 1–2) y transfusión (OR 2, IC 95% 1.4–3) o reoperación (OR 11.4; IC 95% 7.4–17.5) durante la estadía índice. No se identificó ningún factor de riesgo potencialmente prevenible para el reingreso temprano (128 pacientes, 24.3% de todos los reingresos, 3% de la cohorte total), y la estadía hospitalaria índice de ≤ 3 días no se asoció con un aumento en el reingreso (OR 0.9; IC 95% 0.7–1.2) Mientras que el íleo / obstrucción del intestino delgado (temprano: 43.8% vs. tardío: 15.5%, p < 0.001) fueron las principales causas de reingresos tempranos, infecciones profundas (3.9% vs 16.3%, p < 0.001) y lesión renal aguda (0 vs 5%, p = 0.006) se observaron principalmente durante los reingresos después de 48 horas. LIMITACIONES: Riesgo de subregistro debido a la pérdida en el seguimiento, posible co-ocurrencia de complicaciones. CONCLUSIONES: El reingreso hospitalario temprano se debió principalmente a íleo u obstrucción intestinal, mientras que los reingresos tardíos se relacionaron con infecciones profundas y lesión renal aguda. Es importante tener una actitud suspicaz hacia los posibles síntomas relacionados con el íleo antes del alta y una educación específica para los pacientes con ostomía. La estadía hospitalaria índice corta no se asoció con mayores tasas de reingreso. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B237.

AbstractRationaleThe aim of this study was to identify temporal readmission patterns according to baseline disease categories to provide opportunities for targeted interventions.MethodsRetrospective analysis of consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients who underwent elective colorectal resections (2011‐2017) at Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN. A prospective administrative database including patient demographics, procedure characteristics, discharge information and specifics on 30‐day readmissions (to index facility) including timing and reasons was utilized. The ICD‐9 codes were regrouped into the main pathologies Cancer, Crohn's disease (CD)/chronic ulcerative colitis (CUC), and diverticular disease.ResultsIn total, 521 (7.2%) out of 7245 patients undergoing inpatient colorectal surgery were readmitted. In all increments of time from discharge (0‐2 days: 31.3% of all readmissions, 3‐7 days: 32.4% of all readmissions, 8‐14 days: 18% of all readmissions, and 15‐30 days: 18.3% of all readmissions), reasons for readmission differed significantly (all P < 0.001). Across all disease categories, early readmissions (within 2 days of discharge) were most likely due to ileus/obstruction (53.4% of early readmissions), whereas with 42.5%, infection was the most common cause for late readmissions (>7 days). Patients with home discharge were more likely to be readmitted earlier within the 30‐day observation period (P = 0.099), whereas patients with a longer length of index hospital stay (>7 days) were readmitted later (P = 0.080).ConclusionsReasons for readmission appear to be universal across different disease categories. Targeted educational and collaborative measures may help to mitigate the burden of hospital readmissions to index facilities.

Abstract Background This study aimed to identify patients eligible for a 48-h stay after colorectal resection, to provide guidance for early discharge planning. Methods A bi-institutional retrospective cohort study was undertaken of consecutive patients undergoing major elective colorectal resection for benign or malignant pathology within a comprehensive enhanced recovery pathway between 2011 and 2017. Overall and severe (Clavien–Dindo grade IIIb or above) postoperative complication and readmission rates were compared between patients who were discharged within 48 h and those who had hospital stay of 48 h or more. Multinominal logistic regression analysis was performed to ascertain significant factors associated with a short hospital stay (less than 48 h). Results In total, 686 of 5122 patients (13·4 per cent) were discharged within 48 h. Independent factors favouring a short hospital stay were age below 60 years (odds ratio (OR) 1·34; P = 0·002), ASA grade less than III (OR 1·42; P = 0·003), restrictive fluid management (less than 3000 ml on day of surgery: OR 1·46; P &lt; 0·001), duration of surgery less than 180 min (OR 1·89; P &lt; 0·001), minimally invasive approach (OR 1·92; P &lt; 0·001) and wound contamination grade below III (OR 4·50; P &lt; 0·001), whereas cancer diagnosis (OR 0·55; P &lt; 0·001) and malnutrition (BMI below 18 kg/m2: OR 0·42; P = 0·008) decreased the likelihood of early discharge. Patients with a 48-h stay had fewer overall (10·8 per cent versus 30·6 per cent in those with a longer stay; P &lt; 0·001) and fewer severe (2·6 versus 10·2 per cent respectively; P &lt; 0·001) complications, and a lower readmission rate (9·0 versus 11·8 per cent; P = 0·035). Conclusion Early discharge of selected patients is safe and does not increase postoperative morbidity or readmission rates. In these patients, outpatient colorectal surgery should be feasible on a large scale with logistical optimization.