A Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Fast-Track Recovery aft er Cardiac Surgery
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom. Heart Surgery Forum
(Impact Factor: 0.39).
12/2011; 14(6):E330-4. DOI: 10.1532/HSF98.20111029
In the last 5 decades, the care of cardiac surgical patients has improved with the aid of strategies aimed at facilitating patient recovery. One of the innovations in this context is "fast-tracking" or "rapid recovery." This process refers to all interventions that aim to shorten a patient's stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) through accelerating the patient's transfer to a step-down or telemetry unit and to the general ward.
Patients were allocated to 2 groups. The fast-track group (n = 84) went through an independent theatre recovery unit (TRU). The patients were then transferred on the same day to an intermediate care unit and transferred on the following day to the ward. The intensive care group (52 patients) went to the ICU for at least 1 day, after which they were transferred to the ward.
The fast-track pathway significantly reduced the length of stay (LOS) in an intensive care facility (P < .001). The duration of intubation was reduced from a median of 4.08 hours (range, 1.17-13.17 hours) in the intensive care group to 2.75 hours (range, 0.25-18.57 hours) in the fast-track group (P < .001). However, the median values for total hospital LOS, incidences of complications, reintubation, and readmission were similar for the 2 groups. The incidence of failure in the fast-track group was 10%. The mean (SD) cost of the perioperative care was £4182 ± £2284 ($6683 ± 3650) for the fast-track patients, compared with £4553 ± £1355 ($7277 ± $2165) for the intensive care group.
Fast-track recovery after cardiac surgery decreases the intensive care LOS and the total duration of intubation. It is a cost-effective strategy compared with conventional recovery protocols; however, it does not reduce the total hospital LOS or the incidence of complications.
Available from: Lesley Gotlib Conn
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme is a multimodal evidence-based approach to surgical care which begins in the preoperative setting and extends through to patient discharge in the postoperative period. The primary components of ERAS include the introduction of preoperative patient education; reduction in perioperative use of nasogastric tubes and drains; the use of multimodal analgesia; goal-directed fluid management; early removal of Foley catheter; early mobilization, and early oral nutrition. The ERAS approach has gradually evolved to become the standard of care in colorectal surgery and is presently being used in other specialty areas such as vascular surgery. Currently there is little evidence available for the implementation of ERAS in this field. We plan to conduct a systematic review of this literature with a view to incorporating ERAS principles into the management of major elective vascular surgery procedures.
We will search EMBASE (OVID, 1947 to June 2012), Medline (OVID, 1948 to June 2012), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley, Issue 1, 2012). Searches will be performed with no year or language restrictions. For inclusion, studies must look at adult patients over 18 years. Major elective vascular surgery includes carotid, bypass, aneurysm and amputation procedures. Studies must have evaluated usual care against an ERAS intervention in the preoperative, perioperative or postoperative period of care. Primary outcome measures are length of stay, decreased complication rate, and patient satisfaction or expectations. Only randomized controlled trials will be included.
Most ERAS approaches have been considered in the context of colorectal surgery. Given the increasing use of multiple yet different aspects of this pathway in vascular surgery, it is timely to systematically review the evidence for their independent or combined outcomes, with a view to implementing them in this clinical setting. Results from this review will have important implications for vascular surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, and other health care professionals when making evidenced-based decisions about the use of ERAS in daily practice.
Systematic Reviews 11/2012; 1(1):52. DOI:10.1186/2046-4053-1-52
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:: To facilitate the planning of perioperative care pathways, a fast-track failure prediction model has been developed in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This study externally validated such a fast-track failure risk prediction model and determined the potential clinical consequences to ICU bed utilization. DESIGN:: Prospective cohort study. SETTING:: Cardiothoracic Surgery Department and Intensive Care Unit of Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong. PATIENTS:: The St Mary's Hospital fast-track failure risk prediction model was applied to patients included in an adult cardiac surgery database (January 2006 to June 2011). INTERVENTIONS:: The performance of the fast-track failure risk model was assessed by discrimination and calibration methods. The potential clinical consequences of applying the model on ICU bed utilization was assessed using a decision curve analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:: Of the 1,597 patients, 175 (11%) failed fast-track management. The final updated model showed very good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.86) and adequate calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic, p = 0.80). A decision curve analysis showed that if a threshold probability range of fast-track failure of 5%-20% is used to determine who should be electively admitted to the ICU and who should be admitted to a fast-track recovery unit, it would lead to a substantial benefit (23%-67%) in terms of effective bed utilization, even after taking into account the negative consequences of unplanned admissions. CONCLUSIONS:: As the performance of the final updated fast-track failure model was very good, it can be used to estimate the predicted probability of fast-track failure on individual patients. The clinical consequence of applying the final model appears substantial with regard to the potential increase in effective ICU bed utilization.
Critical care medicine 02/2013; 41(5). DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827711ad · 6.31 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Evaluation of health care outcomes has become increasingly important as we strive to improve quality and efficiency while controlling cost. Many groups feel that analysis of large datasets will be useful in optimizing resource utilization; however, the ideal blend of clinical and administrative data points has not been developed. Hospitals and health care systems have several tools to measure cost and resource utilization, but the data are often housed in disparate systems that are not integrated and do not permit multisystem analysis. Systems Outcomes and Clinical Resources AdministraTive Efficiency Software (SOCRATES) is a novel data merging, warehousing, analysis, and reporting technology, which brings together disparate hospital administrative systems generating automated or customizable risk-adjusted reports. Used in combination with standardized enhanced care pathways, SOCRATES offers a mechanism to improve the quality and efficiency of care, with the ability to measure real-time changes in outcomes.
Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery 03/2013; 26(1):56-62. DOI:10.1055/s-0033-1333662
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.