Association between protein intake and functional capacity in critically ill patients: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) protein benchmarks are based on mortality and morbidity; whether these targets also support functional recovery is unknown. We assessed whether different protein doses influenced patients' functional capacity, measured by the Chelsea Physical Assessment score (CPAx). METHODS: Single-center retrospective cohort study on ICU survivors with length of stay ≥7 days admitted between October 2014 and September 2020. Eligible patients were divided according to protein intake (g/kg/day): low (<0.8), medium (0.8-1.19), high (1.2-1.5), and very high (>1.5). Protein dose effect on CPAx was assessed at ICU discharge with analysis of covariance adjusting for age, illness severity, hospital length of stay before ICU admission, time to start nutrition support, and mechanical ventilation duration. We also investigated effect modification by energy intake and nutrition status. RESULTS: Enrolled patients (n = 531) were similar for age, nutrition status, and illness severity across groups. CPAxs were nonlinearly associated with protein doses and similar among low, medium, and very high groups. The CPAx for the high group was statistically different (P = 0.014), indicating that the data of three groups could be pooled. Mean CPAx difference remained statistically significant after adjusting for confounding variables (3.9 ± 1.8, P = 0.029 in the four-group model, and 2.7 ± 0.9, P = 0.003 in the pooled two-group model). Energy intake was equivalent between groups and did not modify CPAx. The high group had superior CPAx in both well-nourished and malnourished patients, indicating nutrition status was not an effect modifier. CONCLUSION: Protein dose 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day was associated with superior functional capacity at ICU discharge compared with other doses. Neither energy intake nor nutrition status modified functional capacity across groups; therefore, the results appear to be influenced by 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day.

Prehabilitation in patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation: protocol of a feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation (LT) are often frail, and malnourished. The period of time on the waitlist provides an opportunity to improve their physical fitness. Prehabilitation appears to improve the physical fitness of patients before major surgery. Little is known about prehabilitation in patients with cirrhosis. The aim of this feasibility study will be to investigate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of a multimodal prehabilitation programme in this patient population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an open-label single-arm feasibility trial recruiting 25 consecutive adult patients with cirrhosis active on the LT waiting list of the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC). Individuals will be excluded based on criteria developed for the safe exercise training in patients with cirrhosis. Enrolled individuals will participate in a multimodal prehabilitation programme conducted at the PeriOperative Programme complex of the MUHC. It includes exercise training with a certified kinesiologist (aerobic and resistance training), nutritional optimisation with a registered dietician and psychological support with a nurse specialist. The exercise training programme is divided into an induction phase with three sessions per week for 4 weeks followed by a maintenance phase with one session every other week for 20 weeks. Aerobic training will be individualised based on result from cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and will include a high-intensity interval training on a cycle ergometer. Feasibility, adherence and acceptability of the intervention will be assessed. Adverse events will be reviewed before each visit. Changes in exercise capacity (6-minute walk test, CPET, liver frailty index), nutritional status and health-related quality of life will be assessed during the study. Post-transplantation outcomes will be recorded. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research ethics board of the MUHC has approved this study (2021-7646). Our findings will be submitted for presentation at national and international conferences, and for peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05237583.

Outcomes reported in randomised trials of surgical prehabilitation: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity of reported outcomes can impact the certainty of evidence for prehabilitation. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically map outcomes and assessment tools used in trials of surgical prehabilitation. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched in February 2023. Randomised controlled trials of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions (nutrition, exercise, psychological support) lasting at least 7 days in adults undergoing elective surgery were included. Reported outcomes were classified according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research framework. RESULTS: We included 76 trials, mostly focused on abdominal or orthopaedic surgeries. A total of 50 different outcomes were identified, measured using 184 outcome assessment tools. Observer-reported outcomes were collected in 86% of trials (n=65), with hospital length of stay being most common. Performance outcomes were reported in 80% of trials (n=61), most commonly as exercise capacity assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Clinician-reported outcomes were included in 78% (n=59) of trials and most frequently included postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo classification. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 76% (n=58) of trials, with health-related quality of life using the 36- or 12-Item Short Form Survey being most prevalent. Biomarker outcomes were reported in 16% of trials (n=12) most commonly using inflammatory markers assessed with C-reactive protein. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial heterogeneity in the reporting of outcomes and assessment tools across surgical prehabilitation trials. Identification of meaningful outcomes, and agreement on appropriate assessment tools, could inform the development of a prehabilitation core outcomes set to harmonise outcome reporting and facilitate meta-analyses.

Towards a common definition of surgical prehabilitation: a scoping review of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: There is no universally accepted definition for surgical prehabilitation. The objectives of this scoping review were to (1) identify how surgical prehabilitation is defined across randomised controlled trials and (2) propose a common definition. METHODS: The final search was conducted in February 2023 using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions (nutrition, exercise, and psychological support) lasting at least 7 days in adults undergoing elective surgery. Qualitative data were analysed using summative content analysis. RESULTS: We identified 76 prehabilitation trials of patients undergoing abdominal (n=26, 34%), orthopaedic (n=20, 26%), thoracic (n=14, 18%), cardiac (n=7, 9%), spinal (n=4, 5%), and other (n=5, 7%) surgeries. Surgical prehabilitation was explicitly defined in more than half of these RCTs (n=42, 55%). Our findings consolidated the following definition: 'Prehabilitation is a process from diagnosis to surgery, consisting of one or more preoperative interventions of exercise, nutrition, psychological strategies and respiratory training, that aims to enhance functional capacity and physiological reserve to allow patients to withstand surgical stressors, improve postoperative outcomes, and facilitate recovery.' CONCLUSIONS: A common definition is the first step towards standardisation, which is needed to guide future high-quality research and advance the field of prehabilitation. The proposed definition should be further evaluated by international stakeholders to ensure that it is comprehensive and globally accepted.

International consensus is needed on a core outcome set to advance the evidence of best practice in cancer prehabilitation services and research.

Prehabilitation aims to optimise patients' physical and psychological status before treatment. The types of outcomes measured to assess the impact of prehabilitation interventions vary across clinical research and service evaluation, limiting the ability to compare between studies and services and to pool data. An international workshop involving academic and clinical experts in cancer prehabilitation was convened in May 2022 at Sheffield Hallam University's Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre, England. The workshop substantiated calls for a core outcome set to advance knowledge and understanding of best practice in cancer prehabilitation and to develop national and international databases to assess outcomes at a population level.

Nutritional aspects of prehabilitation in adults with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplant.

Malnutrition, sarcopenia (low muscle mass), and physical frailty have gained increasing recognition in candidates for liver transplant (LT) as these conditions can impact postoperative functional capacity. Multidimensional prehabilitation programs have been proposed as a safe intervention in adults awaiting LT but the nutritional pillar of prehabilitation has been understudied. This review summarizes the nutritional recommendations for prehabilitation for individuals with cirrhosis awaiting LT. Three major aspects of nutritional prehabilitation are discussed: (1) Assess: Evaluate nutritional status and assess for malnutrition, sarcopenia, and frailty to guide the nutritional prehabilitation intervention intensity, increasing across universal, targeted, and specialist levels; (2) Intervene: Prescribe a nutritional prehabilitation intervention to meet established nutrition guidelines in cirrhosis with a targeted focus on improving nutritional status and muscle health; (3) Reassess: Follow-up based on the required intensity of nutritional care with as needed intervention adjustment. Topics covered in the review include nutritional care levels for prehabilitation, energy prescriptions across body mass index strata, detailed considerations around protein intake (amount, distribution, and quality), carbohydrate and fat intake, other nutritional considerations, and the potential role of dietary supplements and nutraceuticals. Future research is warranted to more accurately evaluate energy needs, evaluate emerging dietary supplementation strategies, and establish the role of nutraceuticals alongside food-based interventions. While the general principles of nutritional prehabilitation are ready for immediate application, future large-scale randomized controlled trials in this space will help to quantify the benefit that can be gained by transitioning the LT approach from passive "transplant waitlist time" to active "transplant preparation time."

A survey of preoperative surgical nutrition practices, opinions, and barriers across Canada.

Malnutrition is prevalent among surgical candidates and associated with adverse outcomes. Despite being potentially modifiable, malnutrition risk screening is not a standard preoperative practice. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to understand healthcare professionals' (HCPs) opinions and barriers regarding screening and treatment of malnutrition. HCPs working with adult surgical patients in Canada were invited to complete an online survey. Barriers to preoperative malnutrition screening were assessed using the Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour model. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analyzed using summative content analysis. Of the 225 HCPs surveyed (n = 111 dietitians, n = 72 physicians, n = 42 allied HCPs), 96%-100% agreed that preoperative malnutrition is a modifiable risk factor associated with worse surgical outcomes and is a treatment priority. Yet, 65% (n = 142/220; dietitians: 88% vs. physicians: 40%) reported screening for malnutrition, which mostly occured in the postoperative period (n = 117) by dietitians (n = 94). Just 42% (48/113) of non-dietitian respondents referred positively screened patients to a dietitian for further assessment and treatment. The most prevalent barriers for malnutrition screening were related to opportunity, including availability of resources (57%, n = 121/212), time (40%, n = 84/212) and support from others (38%, n = 80/212). In conclusion, there is a gap between opinion and practice among surgical HCPs pertaining to malnutrition. Although HCPs agreed malnutrition is a surgical priority, the opportunity to screen for nutrition risk was a great barrier.

Guidelines for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations - 2019 update

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is now firmly established as a global surgical quality improvement initiative that results in both clinical improvements1 and cost benefits to the healthcare system.2 ERAS guidelines are based on the highest quality evidence available and as such require updating on a regular basis.3 The ERAS Gynecologic/Oncology guidelines4 5 were first published in February 2016. This article represents the joint efforts of the ERAS® Society (www.erassociety.org) and authors from the international ERAS Gynecology chapters to present an updated consensus review of perioperative care for gynecologic/oncology surgery based on best current evidence.