A Novel Digital Health Platform With Health Coaches to Optimize Surgical Patients: Feasibility Study at a Large Academic Health System.

BACKGROUND: Pip is a novel digital health platform (DHP) that combines human health coaches (HCs) and technology with patient-facing content. This combination has not been studied in perioperative surgical optimization. OBJECTIVE: This study's aim was to test the feasibility of the Pip platform for deploying perioperative, digital, patient-facing optimization guidelines to elective surgical patients, assisted by an HC, at predefined intervals in the perioperative journey. METHODS: We conducted an institutional review board-approved, descriptive, prospective feasibility study of patients scheduled for elective surgery and invited to enroll in Pip from 2.5 to 4 weeks preoperatively through 4 weeks postoperatively at an academic medical center between November 22, 2022, and March 27, 2023. Descriptive primary end points were patient-reported outcomes, including patient satisfaction and engagement, and Pip HC evaluations. Secondary end points included mean or median length of stay (LOS), readmission at 7 and 30 days, and emergency department use within 30 days. Secondary end points were compared between patients who received Pip versus patients who did not receive Pip using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: A total of 283 patients were invited, of whom 172 (60.8%) enrolled in Pip. Of these, 80.2% (138/172) patients had ≥1 HC session and proceeded to surgery, and 70.3% (97/138) of the enrolled patients engaged with Pip postoperatively. The mean engagement began 27 days before surgery. Pip demonstrated an 82% weekly engagement rate with HCs. Patients attended an average of 6.7 HC sessions. Of those patients that completed surveys (95/138, 68.8%), high satisfaction scores were recorded (mean 4.8/5; n=95). Patients strongly agreed that HCs helped them throughout the perioperative process (mean 4.97/5; n=33). The average net promoter score was 9.7 out of 10. A total of 268 patients in the non-Pip group and 128 patients in the Pip group had appropriate overlapping distributions of stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting for the analytic sample. The Pip cohort was associated with LOS reduction when compared to the non-Pip cohort (mean 2.4 vs 3.1 days; median 1.9, IQR 1.0-3.1 vs median 3.0, IQR 1.1-3.9 days; mean ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.62-0.93; P=.009). The Pip cohort experienced a 49% lower risk of 7-day readmission (relative risk [RR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.11-2.31; P=.38) and a 17% lower risk of 30-day readmission (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.30-2.31; P=.73), though these did not reach statistical significance. Both cohorts had similar 30-day emergency department returns (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.56-2.01, P=.85). CONCLUSIONS: Pip is a novel mobile DHP combining human HCs and perioperative optimization content that is feasible to engage patients in their perioperative journey and is associated with reduced hospital LOS. Further studies assessing the impact on clinical and patient-reported outcomes from the use of Pip or similar DHPs HC combinations during the perioperative journey are required.

REMAP Periop: a randomised, embedded, multifactorial adaptive platform trial protocol for perioperative medicine to determine the optimal enhanced recovery pathway components in complex abdominal surgery patients within a US healthcare system.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) has resulted in improved patient-centred outcomes and decreased costs. However, there is a lack of high-level evidence for many ERP elements. We have designed a randomised, embedded, multifactorial, adaptive platform perioperative medicine (REMAP Periop) trial to evaluate the effectiveness of several perioperative therapies for patients undergoing complex abdominal surgery as part of an ERP. This trial will begin with two domains: postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis and regional/neuraxial analgesia. Patients enrolled in the trial will be randomised to arms within both domains, with the possibility of adding additional domains in the future. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In the PONV domain, patients are randomised to optimal versus supraoptimal prophylactic regimens. In the regional/neuraxial domain, patients are randomised to one of five different single-injection techniques/combination of techniques. The primary study endpoint is hospital-free days at 30 days, with additional domain-specific secondary endpoints of PONV incidence and postoperative opioid consumption. The efficacy of an intervention arm within a given domain will be evaluated at regular interim analyses using Bayesian statistical analysis. At the beginning of the trial, participants will have an equal probability of being allocated to any given intervention within a domain (ie, simple 1:1 randomisation), with response adaptive randomisation guiding changes to allocation ratios after interim analyses when applicable based on prespecified statistical triggers. Triggers met at interim analysis may also result in intervention dropping. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The core protocol and domain-specific appendices were approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. A waiver of informed consent was obtained for this trial. Trial results will be announced to the public and healthcare providers once prespecified statistical triggers of interest are reached as described in the core protocol, and the most favourable interventions will then be implemented as a standardised institutional protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04606264.

Enhanced Recovery Protocols Reduce Mortality Across Eight Surgical Specialties at Academic and University-affiliated Community Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if implementation of a simplified ERP across multiple surgical specialties in different hospitals is associated with improved short and long-term mortality. Secondary aims were to examine ERP effect on length of stay, 30-day readmission, discharge disposition, and complications. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Enhanced recovery after surgery and various derivative ERPs have been successfully implemented. These protocols typically include elaborate sets of multimodal and multidisciplinary approaches, which can make implementation challenging or are variable across different specialties. Few studies have shown if a simplified version of ERP implemented across multiple surgical specialties can improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: A simplified ERP with 7 key domains (minimally invasive surgical approach when feasible, pre-/intra-operative multimodal analgesia, postoperative multimodal analgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, early diet advancement, early ambulation, and early removal of urinary catheter) was implemented in 5 academic and community hospitals within a single health system. Patients who underwent nonemergent, major orthopedic or abdominal surgery including hip/knee replacement, hepatobiliary, colorectal, gynecology oncology, bariatric, general, and urological surgery were included. Propensity-matched, retrospective case-control analysis was performed on all eligible surgical patients between 2014 and 2017 after ERP implementation or in the 12 months preceding ERP implementation (control population). RESULTS: A total of 9492 patients (5185 ERP and 4307 controls) underwent ERP eligible surgery during the study period. Three thousand three hundred sixty-seven ERP patients were matched by surgical specialty and hospital site to control non-ERP patients. Short and long-term mortality was improved in ERP patients: 30 day: ERP 0.2% versus control 0.6% ( P = 0.002); 1-year: ERP 3.9% versus control 5.1% ( P < 0.0001); 2-year: ERP 6.2% versus control 9.0% ( P < 0.0001). Length of stay was significantly lower in ERP patients (ERP: 3.9 ± 3.8 days; control: 4.8 ± 5.0 days, P < 0.0001). ERP patients were also less likely to be discharged to a facility (ERP: 11.3%; control: 14.8%, P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference for 30-day readmission. All complications except venous thromboembolism were significantly reduced in the ERP population (P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: A simplified ERP can uniformly be implemented across multiple surgical specialties and hospital types. ERPs improve short and long-term mortality, clinical outcomes, length of stay, and discharge disposition to home.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing colorectal surgery within an institutional enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: comparison of two prophylactic antiemetic regimens.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery protocols (ERP) provide optimal perioperative care for surgical patients. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common after colorectal surgery (CRS). We aim to compare the efficacy of aprepitant to a cost-effective alternative, perphenazine, as components of triple antiemetic prophylaxis in ERP patients. METHODS: Patients who underwent ERP CRS at a single institution from July 2015 to July 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Only subjects who received aprepitant (Group 1) or perphenazine (Group 2) preoperatively for PONV prophylaxis were included. Patient characteristics, simplified Apfel PONV scores, perioperative medications, and PONV incidence were compared between the groups. PONV was defined as the need for rescue antiemetics on postoperative days (POD) 0-5. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-seven patients underwent CRS of which 498 met the inclusion criteria. Two hundred thirty-one (46.4%) received aprepitant and 267 (53.6%) received perphenazine. The incidence of early PONV (POD 0-1) was comparable between the two groups: 44.2% in Group 1 and 44.6% in Group 2 (P = 0.926). Late PONV (POD 2-5) occurred less often in Group 1 than Group 2, respectively (35.9% vs. 45.7%, P = 0.027). After matching the groups for preoperative, procedural, and anesthesia characteristics (164 pairs), no difference in early or late PONV could be demonstrated between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PONV remains high despite most patients receiving three prophylactic antiemetic medications. Perphenazine can be considered a cost-effective alternative to oral aprepitant for prophylaxis of PONV in patients undergoing CRS within an ERP.