Cost‐effectiveness of the implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery. Issue 8 (10th June 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Roulin, D.; Donadini, A.; Gander, S.; Griesser, A.‐C.; Blanc, C.; Hübner, M.; Schäfer, M.; Demartines, N.
• Is Part Of: British journal of surgery. Volume 100:Issue 8(2013:Aug.)
• Page Start: 1108
• Page End: 1114
• Publication Date: 2013-06-10
• Subjects: Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.005
• DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9184
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0007-1323

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="bjs9184-abs-0001"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="bjs9184-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Background</title> <p id="bjs9184-para-0001"> <bold>Enhanced recovery protocols may reduce postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. However, the implementation of these protocols requires time and financial investment. This study evaluated the cost‐effectiveness of enhanced recovery implementation</bold>.</p> </sec> <sec id="bjs9184-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p id="bjs9184-para-0002"> <bold>The first 50 consecutive patients treated during implementation of an enhanced recovery programme were compared with 50 consecutive patients treated in the year before its introduction. The enhanced recovery protocol principally implemented preoperative counselling, reduced preoperative fasting, preoperative carbohydrate loading, avoidance of premedication, optimized fluid balance, standardized postoperative analgesia, use of a no‐drain policy, as well as early nutrition and mobilization. Length of stay, readmissions and complications within 30 days were compared. A cost‐minimization analysis was performed</bold>.</p> </sec> <sec id="bjs9184-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p id="bjs9184-para-0003"> <bold>Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the enhanced recovery group: median 7 (interquartile range 5–12) <italic>versus</italic> 10 (7–18) days (<italic>P</italic> = 0·003); two patients were readmitted in each group. The rate of severe complications was lower in the enhanced recovery group (12 <italic>versus</italic> 20 per cent), but there was no difference in overall morbidity. The mean saving per patient in the enhanced recovery group was €1651</bold>.</p> </sec> <sec id="bjs9184-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusion</title> <p id="bjs9184-para-0004"> <bold>Enhanced recovery is cost‐effective, with savings evident even in the initial implementation period</bold>.</p> </sec> </abstract>