The application of ERAS in the perioperative period management of patients for lung transplantation.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To explore the application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in the perioperative period of lung transplantation. Methods: We retrospectively collected the clinical data of 27 lung transplant patients who underwent ERAS during the perioperative period, while 12 lung transplant patients receiving routine treatment served as controls. General information was collected, including the specific implementation plan of ERAS, the incidence of complications and survival rate during the perioperative period (<30 d), postoperative hospitalization indicators, the postoperative length of stay, and numerical rating scale (NRS) scores. Results: Comparison of postoperative hospitalization indicators, the ERAS group compared with the control group, there were significant differences in postoperative ICU stay time (2.0(2.0,4.0) vs 4.5(3.0,6.0), p = 0.005), postoperative hospital stay time (18(15,26) vs 24(19.5,32.75), p = 0.016), duration of nasogastric tube (3(2,3) vs 4(2.25,4.75), p = 0.023), and first ambulation time (4(3,5) vs 5.8(4.5,7.5), p = 0.004). There was no significant difference in postoperative invasive mechanical ventilation time, time to eat after surgery, duration of urinary catheter and duration of chest tube between the ERAS group and the control group (p>0.05). The perioperative survival of the ERAS group was 81.5%, which was higher than the control group (66.7%), but there is no statistically significant difference. Comparison of post-extubation NRS scores, the ERAS group had lower NRS scores at 12 h (5.30 ± 0.14 vs 6.25 ± 0.75), 24 h (3.44 ± 0.64 vs 5.58 ± 0.9), 48 h (2.74 ± 0.66 vs 4.08 ± 0.79) and 72 h (1.11 ± 0.80 vs 2.33 ± 0.49) than the control group, the difference was statistically significant (p<0.01). Intra-group comparison, post-extubation 12 h comparison post-extubation 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, the NRS scores showed a gradual downward trend, the difference was statistically significant (p<0.01). In the comparison of perioperative complications, the ERAS group had a lower postoperative infection incidence than the control group, the difference was statistically significant (44.4% vs 83.3%, p = 0.037). The ERAS group had lower postoperative delirium incidence than the control group, the difference was statistically significant (11.1% vs 50%, p = 0.014). There was no significant difference in the incidence of acute rejection, primary graft loss (PGD), gastrointestinal (GI) complications and airway complications between two groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: The ERAS can be applied to lung transplant patients to relieve postoperative pain, shorten postoperative tube time, and shorten postoperative stay. Perioperative pulmonary rehabilitation exercises are beneficial to reducing the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications.