Delivery of drinking, eating and mobilising (DrEaMing) and its association with length of hospital stay after major noncardiac surgery: observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery pathways are associated with improved postoperative outcomes. However, as enhanced recovery pathways have become more complex and varied, compliance has reduced. The 'DrEaMing' bundle re-prioritises early postoperative delivery of drinking, eating, and mobilising. We investigated relationships between DrEaMing compliance, postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications in a prospective multicentre major surgical cohort. METHODS: We interrogated the UK Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme dataset. Analyses were conducted in four stages. In an exploratory cohort, we identified independent predictors of DrEaMing. We quantified the association between delivery of DrEaMing (and its component variables) and prolonged LOS in a homogenous colorectal subgroup and assessed generalisability in multispecialty patients. Finally, LOS and complications were compared across hospitals, stratified by DrEaMing compliance. RESULTS: The exploratory cohort comprised 22 218 records, the colorectal subgroup 7230, and the multispecialty subgroup 5713. DrEaMing compliance was 59% (13 112 patients), 60% (4341 patients), and 60% (3421), respectively, but varied substantially between hospitals. Delivery of DrEaMing predicted reduced odds of prolonged LOS in colorectal (odds ratio 0.51 [0.43-0.59], P<0.001) and multispecialty cohorts (odds ratio 0.47 [0.41-0.53], P<0.001). At the hospital level, complications were not the primary determinant of LOS after colorectal surgery, but consistent delivery of DrEaMing was associated with significantly shorter LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of bundled and unbundled DrEaMing was associated with substantial reductions in postoperative LOS, independent of the effects of confounder variables. Consistency of process delivery, and not complications, predicted shorter hospital-level length of stay. DrEaMing may be adopted by perioperative health systems as a quality metric to support improved patient outcomes and reduced hospital length of stay.

Analgesia for emergency laparotomy: a systematic review.

Aims/Background Poorly controlled pain is common after emergency laparotomy. It causes distress, hinders rehabilitation, and predisposes to complications: prolonged hospitalisation, persistent pain, and reduced quality of life. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the relative efficacies of pre-emptive analgesia for emergency laparotomy to inform practice. Methods We performed a search of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and SCOPUS for comparator studies of preoperative/intraoperative interventions to control/reduce postoperative pain in adults undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) for general surgical pathologies. Exclusion criteria: surgery including non-abdominal sites; postoperative sedation and/or intubation; non-formal assessment of pain; non-English manuscripts. All manuscripts were screened by two investigators. Results We identified 2389 papers. Following handsearching and removal of duplicates, 1147 were screened. None were eligible for inclusion, with many looking at elective and/or laparoscopic surgeries. Conclusion Our findings indicate there is no evidence base for pre-emptive analgesic strategies in emergency laparotomy. This contrasts substantially with elective cohorts. Potential reasons include variation in practice, management of physiological derangement taking priority, and perceived contraindications to neuraxial techniques. We urge a review of contemporary practice, with analysis of clinical data, to generate expert consensus.

Not All Piggybacks Are Equal: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Variation in Anhepatic Transcaval Pressure Gradient and Acute Kidney Injury During Liver Transplant.

OBJECTIVES: Complete inferior vena cava clamping in cavalreplacement during livertransplantis associated with substantial physiological derangement and postoperative morbidity. Partial clamping in the piggyback technique may be relatively protective, but evidence is lacking. Having observed substantial variation in transhepatic inferior vena cava pressure gradient with piggyback, we hypothesized that the causative mechanism is the extent of caval clamping rather than the surgical approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used internal jugular and femoral catheters to estimate suprahepatic and infrahepatic inferior vena cava pressures during clamping. Pressure gradients were calculated, and distributions were compared by surgical technique. We estimated adjusted odds ratios for pressure gradient on acute kidney injury at 72 hours. RESULTS: In 115 case records, we observed substantial variation in maximum pressure gradient; median values were 18.0 mm Hg(interquartile range, 8.0-25.0 mm Hg) with the piggyback technique and 24.0 mm Hg (interquartile range, 19.5-27.0 mm Hg) with caval replacement. Incidence of acute kidney injury was 25% (29 patients). Pressure gradient was linearly associated with probability of acute kidney injury (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13). CONCLUSIONS: We report 2 novel findings. (1) Anhepatic inferior vena cavapressuregradient variedsubstantially in individuals undergoing piggyback, and (2) gradient was positively associatedwith early acute kidney injury. We hypothesize that this (unmeasured) variation explains the conflictingfindings ofprevious studies that compared surgical techniques. Also, we propose that caval pressure gradient could be routinely assessed to optimize real-time piggyback clamp position during livertransplant surgery.

Distance travelled to hospital for emergency laparotomy and the effect of travel time on mortality: cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether distance and estimated travel time to hospital for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy is associated with postoperative mortality. DESIGN: National cohort study using data from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit. SETTING: 171 National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 22 772 adult patients undergoing emergency surgery on the gastrointestinal tract between 2013 and 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality from any cause and in any place at 30 and 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: Median on-road distance between home and hospital was 8.4 km (IQR 4.7-16.7 km) with a median estimated travel time of 16 min. Median time from hospital admission to operating theatre was 12.7 hours. Older patients live on average further from hospital and patients from areas of increased socioeconomic deprivation live on average less far away.We included estimated travel time as a continuous variable in multilevel logistic regression models adjusting for important confounders and found no evidence for an association with 30-day mortality (OR per 10 min of travel time=1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.06, p=0.512) or 90-day mortality (OR 1.02, 95 % CI 0.97 to 1.06, p=0.472).The results were similar when we limited our analysis to the subgroup of 5386 patients undergoing the most urgent surgery. 30-day mortality: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.10, p=0.574) and 90-day mortality: OR=1.01 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.08, p=0.858). CONCLUSIONS: In the UK NHS, estimated travel time between home and hospital was not a primary determinant of short-term mortality following emergency gastrointestinal surgery.

Risk of infection associated with intravenous iron preparations: protocol for updating a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits and risk of intravenous iron have been documented in previous systematic reviews and continue to be the subject of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). An ongoing issue that continues to be raised is the relationship between administering iron and developing infection. This is supported by biological plausibility from animal models. We propose an update of a previously published systematic review and meta-analysis with the primary focus being infection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include RCTs and non-randomised studies (NRS) in this review update. We will search the relevant electronic databases. Two reviewers will independently extract data. Risk of bias for RCTs and NRS will be assessed using the relevant tools recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. Data extracted from RCTs and NRS will be analysed and reported separately. Pooled data from RCTs will be analysed using a random effects model. We will also conduct subgroup analyses to identify any patient populations that may be at increased risk of developing infection. We will provide a narrative synthesis on the definitions, sources and responsible pathogens for infection in the included studies. Overall quality of evidence on the safety outcomes of mortality and infection will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will only investigate published studies and therefore ethical approval is not required. The results will be broadly distributed through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42018096023).