ERAS protocol validation in a propensity-matched cohort of patients undergoing colorectal surgery
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) provides many benefits. However, important knowledge gaps with respect to specific components of enhanced recovery after surgery remain because of limited validation data. The aim of the study was to validate a mature ERAS protocol at a different hospital and in a similar population of patients.
This is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery from 2009 through 2016. Patients enrolled in ERAS are compared with those undergoing the standard of care. Patient demographic characteristics, length of stay, pain scores, and perioperative morbidity are described.
Patients (1396) were propensity matched into two equal groups (ERAS vs non-ERAS). No significant difference was observed for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, sex, operative approach, and surgery duration. Median length of stay in ERAS and non-ERAS groups was 3 and 5 days (P < .001). Mean pain scores were lower in the ERAS group, measured at discharge from the postanesthesia unit (P < .001), on postoperative day 1 (P = .002) and postoperative day 2 (P = .02) but were identical on discharge.
This ERAS protocol was validated in a similar patient population but at a different hospital. ERAS implementation was associated with an improved length of stay and pain scores similar to the original study. Different than most retrospective studies, propensity score matching ensured that groups were evenly matched. To our knowledge, this study is the only ERAS validation study in a propensity-matched cohort of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.
KeywordsColorectal surgery Propensity score Patient readmission Pain management Patient discharge
All authors made substantial contribution to the conception and design of the work, as well as the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data. All authors were critically involved in drafting and revising this project for important intellectual content. Final approval of the version to be published was given by all authors, and they agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Source of funding
Funding provided by Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for Science of Health Care Delivery. The funder had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Compliance with ethical standards
The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study. This study followed the reporting guidelines of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 4.Moiniche S, Bulow S, Hesselfeldt P et al (1995) Convalescence and hospital stay after colonic surgery with balanced analgesia, early oral feeding, and enforced mobilisation. The Eur J Surg 161(4):283–288Google Scholar
- 5.Carmichael JC, Keller DS, Baldini G, Bordeianou L, Weiss E, Lee L, Boutros M, McClane J, Feldman LS, Steele SR (2017) Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after Colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum 60(8):761–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Lassen K, Soop M, Nygren J, Cox PB, Hendry PO, Spies C, von Meyenfeldt M, Fearon KC, Revhaug A, Norderval S, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN, Dejong CH, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group (2009) Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) group recommendations. Arch Surg 144(10):961–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F, et al. 2011 Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2):Cd007635Google Scholar
- 18.Moriarty JP, Daniels PR, Manning DM, O’Meara JG, Ou NN, Berg TM, Haag JD, Roellinger DL, Naessens JM (2017) Going beyond administrative data: retrospective evaluation of an algorithm using the electronic health record to help identify bleeding events among hospitalized medical patients on warfarin. Am J Med Qual 32(4):391–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Wind J, Hofland J, Preckel B, Hollmann MW, Bossuyt PMM, Gouma DJ, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Fuhring JW, Dejong CHC, van Dam RM, Cuesta MA, Noordhuis A, de Jong D, van Zalingen E, Engel AF, Goei TH, de Stoppelaar IE, van Tets WF, van Wagensveld BA, Swart A, van den Elsen MJLJ, Gerhards MF, de Wit LT, Siepel MAM, van Geloven AAW, Juttmann JW, Clevers W, Bemelman WA (2006) Perioperative strategy in colonic surgery; laparoscopy and/or fast track multimodal management versus standard care (LAFA trial). BMC Surg 6:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Etzioni DA, Lessow CL, Lucas HD, Merchea A, Madura JA, Mahabir R, Mishra N, Wasif N, Mathur AK, Chang YHH, Cima RR, Habermann EB (2018) Infectious surgical complications are not dichotomous: characterizing discordance between administrative data and registry data. Ann Surg 267(1):81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Stone AB, Grant MC, Pio Roda C, Hobson D, Pawlik T, Wu CL, Wick EC (2016) Implementation costs of an enhanced recovery after surgery program in the United States: a financial model and sensitivity analysis based on experiences at a quaternary academic medical center. J Am Coll Surg 222(3):219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Nelson G, Kiyang LN, Crumley ET, Chuck A, Nguyen T, Faris P, Wasylak T, Basualdo-Hammond C, McKay S, Ljungqvist O, Gramlich LM (2016) Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) across a provincial healthcare system: the ERAS Alberta colorectal surgery experience. World J Surg 40(5):1092–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar