Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program in Patients Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Junjie Xiong, Peter Szatmary, Wei Huang, Daniel de la Iglesia-Garcia, Quentin M Nunes, Qing Xia, Weiming Hu, Robert Sutton, Xubao Liu, Michael G Raraty, Junjie Xiong, Peter Szatmary, Wei Huang, Daniel de la Iglesia-Garcia, Quentin M Nunes, Qing Xia, Weiming Hu, Robert Sutton, Xubao Liu, Michael G Raraty

Abstract

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are multimodal, evidence-based approaches to optimize patient outcome after surgery. However, the use of ERAS protocols to improve morbidity and recovery time without compromising safety following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains to be elucidated.We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of ERAS protocols compared with conventional perioperative care (CPC) in patients following PD.PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library were searched between January 2000 and June 2015.The patients who underwent PD with ERAS protocols or CPC were eligible. The studies that compared postoperative length of hospital stay (PLOS), postoperative complications, or in-hospital costs in the 2 groups were included.A meta-analysis, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed to estimate the postoperative outcomes between the 2 groups and identified the potential confounders. We used the methodological index for nonrandomized studies checklist to assess methodological qualities. Weighted mean differences (WMD) or odds ratios (OR) were calculated with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The publication bias tests were also performed through the funnel plots.In total, 14 nonrandomized comparative studies with 1409 ERAS cases and 1310 controls were analyzed. Implementation of an ERAS protocol significantly reduced PLOS (WMD: -4.17 days; 95%CI: -5.72 to -2.61), delayed gastric emptying (OR: 0.56; 95%CI: 0.44-0.71), overall morbidity (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.54-0.74), and in-hospital costs compared to CPC (all P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in other postoperative outcomes. Age, gender, and ERAS component implementation did not significantly contribute to heterogeneity for PLOS as shown by meta-regression analysis.Our study suggested that ERAS was as safe as CPC and improved recovery of patients undergoing PD, thus reducing in-hospital costs. General adoption of ERAS protocols during PD should be recommended.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram depicting the process of identification and inclusion of selected studies.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Forest plots demonstrating the primary outcome postoperative length of hospital stay in terms of ERAS versus CPC after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Pooled WMDs with 95% CIs were calculated using the random-effects model. CI = confidence interval, CPC = conventional perioperative care, ERAS = enhanced recovery after surgery, WMD = weighted mean difference.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Forest plots demonstrating secondary outcomes in terms of ERAS versus CPC after pancreaticoduodenectomy. (A) Postoperative pancreatic fistula; (B) delayed gastric emptying; (C) overall morbidity; (D) readmission rate; (E) reoperation rate; and (F) mortality. CPC = conventional perioperative care, ERAS = enhanced recovery after surgery.
FIGURE 3 (Continued)
FIGURE 3 (Continued)
Forest plots demonstrating secondary outcomes in terms of ERAS versus CPC after pancreaticoduodenectomy. (A) Postoperative pancreatic fistula; (B) delayed gastric emptying; (C) overall morbidity; (D) readmission rate; (E) reoperation rate; and (F) mortality. CPC = conventional perioperative care, ERAS = enhanced recovery after surgery.

References

    1. Kehlet H, Wilmore DW. Multimodal strategies to improve surgical outcome. Am J Surg 2002; 183:630–641.
    1. Wilmore DW, Kehlet H. Management of patients in fast track surgery. BMJ 2001; 322:473–476.
    1. Fearon KC, Ljungqvist O, Von Meyenfeldt M, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery: a consensus review of clinical care for patients undergoing colonic resection. Clin Nutr 2005; 24:466–477.
    1. Barbieri A, Vanhaecht K, Van Herck P, et al. Effects of clinical pathways in the joint replacement: a meta-analysis. BMC Med 2009; 7:32.
    1. Weber WP, Barry M, Junqueira MJ, et al. Initial experiences with a multidisciplinary approach to decreasing the length of hospital stay for patients undergoing unilateral mastectomy. EJSO 2011; 37:944–949.
    1. Khoo CK, Vickery CJ, Forsyth N, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of multimodal perioperative management protocol in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection for cancer. Ann Surg 2007; 245:867–872.
    1. Coolsen MM, van Dam RM, van der Wilt AA, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery after pancreatic surgery with particular emphasis on pancreaticoduodenectomies. World J Surg 2013; 37:1909–1918.
    1. Lassen K, Soop M, Nygren J, et al. Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group recommendations. Arch Surg 2009; 144:961–969.
    1. Lassen K, Coolsen MM, Slim K, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS (R)) Society recommendations. Clin Nutr 2012; 31:817–830.
    1. Porter GA, Pisters PW, Mansyur C, et al. Cost and utilization impact of a clinical pathway for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2000; 7:484–489.
    1. Kennedy EP, Rosato EL, Sauter PK, et al. Initiation of a critical pathway for pancreaticoduodenectomy at an academic institution--the first step in multidisciplinary team building. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204:917–923.discussion 923–914.
    1. Vanounou T, Pratt W, Fischer JE, et al. Deviation-based cost modeling: a novel model to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of clinical pathways. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204:570–579.
    1. Balzano G, Zerbi A, Braga M, et al. Fast-track recovery programme after pancreatico- duodenectomy reduces delayed gastric emptying. Br J Surg 2008; 95:1387–1393.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339:b2535.
    1. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 2005; 138:8–13.
    1. Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 2007; 142:761–768.
    1. Xiong JJ, Altaf K, Mukherjee R, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after intraoperative pancreatic duct stent placement during pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 2012; 99:1050–1061.
    1. Xiong JJ, Tan CL, Szatmary P, et al. Meta-analysis of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 2014; 101:1196–1208.
    1. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003; 73:712–716.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327:557–560.
    1. Demets DL. Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. Stat Med 1987; 6:341–350.
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7:177–188.
    1. Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD. Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 2001; 323:101–105.
    1. Abu Hilal M, Di Fabio F, Badran A, et al. Implementation of enhanced recovery programme after pancreatoduodenectomy: a single-centre UK pilot study. Pancreatology 2013; 13:58–62.
    1. Nikfarjam M, Weinberg L, Low N, et al. A fast track recovery program significantly reduces hospital length of stay following uncomplicated pancreaticoduodenectomy. JOP 2013; 14:63–70.
    1. Braga M, Pecorelli N, Ariotti R, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery pathway in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg 2014; 38:2960–2966.
    1. Coolsen MM, van Dam RM, Chigharoe A, et al. Improving outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy: experiences with implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. Dig Surg 2014; 31:177–184.
    1. Kobayashi S, Ooshima R, Koizumi S, et al. Perioperative care with fast-track management in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Surg 2014; 38:2430–2437.
    1. Pillai SA, Palaniappan R, Pichaimuthu A, et al. Feasibility of implementing fast-track surgery in pancreaticoduodenectomy with pancreaticogastrostomy for reconstruction – a prospective cohort study with historical control. Int J Surg 2014; 12:1005–1009.
    1. Nussbaum DP, Penne K, Stinnett SS, et al. A standardized care plan is associated with shorter hospital length of stay in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Surg Res 2015; 193:237–245.
    1. Shao Z, Jin G, Ji W, et al. The role of fast-track surgery in pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective cohort study of 635 consecutive resections. Int J Surg 2015; 15:129–133.
    1. Yamaki S, Satoi S, Toyokawa H, et al. The clinical role of critical pathway implementation for pancreaticoduodenectomy in 179 patients. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2013; 20:271–278.
    1. Kennedy EP, Grenda TR, Sauter PK, et al. Implementation of a critical pathway for distal pancreatectomy at an academic institution. J Gastrointest Surg 2009; 13:938–944.
    1. Sutcliffe RP, Hamoui M, Isaac J, et al. Implementation of an enhanced recovery pathway after pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with low drain fluid amylase. World J Surg 2015; 39:2023–2030.
    1. Morales Soriano R, Esteve Perez N, Tejada Gavela S, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery: can we improve the results after pancreatoduodenectomy? Cir Esp 2015; 93:509–515.
    1. Williamsson C, Karlsson N, Sturesson C, et al. Impact of a fast-track surgery programme for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 2015; 102:1133–1141.
    1. Whipple AO. The rationale of radical surgery for cancer of the pancreas and ampullary region. Ann Surg 1941; 114:612–615.
    1. de Wilde RF, Besselink MG, van der Tweel I, et al. Impact of nationwide centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy on hospital mortality. Br J Surg 2012; 99:404–410.
    1. DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M, et al. Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 2006; 244:931–937.discussion 937–939.
    1. Gouma DJ, van Geenen RC, van Gulik TM, et al. Rates of complications and death after pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the impact of hospital volume. Ann Surg 2000; 232:786–795.
    1. Kagedan DJ, Ahmed M, Devitt KS, et al. Enhanced recovery after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review of the evidence. HPB 2015; 17:11–16.
    1. Gordon TA, Burleyson GP, Tielsch JM, et al. The effects of regionalization on cost and outcome for one general high-risk surgical procedure. Ann Surg 1995; 221:43–49.
    1. Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F, et al. Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; CD007635.
    1. Goodney PP, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, et al. Hospital volume, length of stay, and readmission rates in high-risk surgery. Ann Surg 2003; 238:161–167.
    1. Dy SM, Garg P, Nyberg D, et al. Critical pathway effectiveness: assessing the impact of patient, hospital care, and pathway characteristics using qualitative comparative analysis. Health Serv Res 2005; 40:499–516.
    1. Group EC. The impact of enhanced recovery protocol compliance on elective colorectal cancer resection: results from an international registry. Ann Surg 2015; 261:1153–1159.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi