Citations

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.

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.

Background: End-of-life (EOL) care intensity is known to vary by secular and geographic patterns. US physicians receive less aggressive EOL care than the general population, presumably the result of preferences shaped by work-place experience with EOL care. Objective: We investigated occupation as a source of variation in EOL care intensity. Methods: Across 4 states, we identified 660 599, nonhealth maintenance organization Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥66 years who died between 2004 and 2011. Linking death certificates, we identified beneficiaries with prespecified occupations: nurses, farmers, clergy, mortuary workers, homemakers, first-responders, veterinary workers, teachers, accountants, and the general population. End-of-life care intensity over the last 6 months of life was assessed using 5 validated measures: (1) Medicare expenditures, rates of (2) hospice, (3) surgery, (4) intensive care, and (5) in-hospital death. Results: Occupation was a source of large variation in EOL care intensity across all measures, before and after adjustment for sex, education, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, race/ethnicity, and hospital referral region. For example, absolute and relative adjusted differences in expenditures were US$9991 and 42% of population mean expenditure ( P < .001 for both). Compared to the general population on the 5 EOL care intensity measures, teachers (5 of 5), homemakers (4 of 5), farmers (4 of 5), and clergy (3 of 5) demonstrated significantly less aggressive care. Mortuary workers had lower EOL care intensity (4 of 5) but small numbers limited statistical significance. Conclusion: Occupations with likely exposure to child development, death/bereavement, and naturalistic influences demonstrated lower EOL care intensity. These findings may inform patients and clinicians navigating choices around individual EOL care preferences.