BACKGROUND: The optimal cardiovascular assessment of liver transplant (LT) candidates is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the performance of CT-based coronary tests (coronary artery calcium score [CACS] and coronary CT angiography [CCTA]) and a modification of the CAD-LT score (mCAD-LT, excluding family history of CAD) to diagnose significant coronary artery disease (CAD) before LT and predict the incidence of post-LT cardiovascular events (CVE). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed a single-centre cohort of LT candidates who underwent non-invasive tests; invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was performed depending on the results of non-invasive tests. mCAD-LT was calculated in all patients. RESULTS: Six-hundred-and-thirty-four LT candidates were assessed and 351 of them underwent LT. CACS, CCTA and ICA were performed in 245, 123 and 120 LT candidates, respectively. Significant CAD was found in 30% of patients undergoing ICA. The AUROCs of mCAD-LT (.722) and CCTA (.654) were significantly higher than that of CACS (.502) to predict the presence of significant CAD. Specificity of the tests ranged between 31% for CCTA and 53% for CACS. Among patients who underwent LT, CACS ≥ 400 and mCAD-LT were independently associated with the incidence of CVE; in patients who underwent CCTA before LT, significant CAD at CCTA also predicted post-LT CVE. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, mCAD-LT score and CT-based tests detect the presence of significant CAD in LT candidates, although they tend to overestimate it. Both mCAD-LT score and CT-based tests classify LT recipients according to their risk of post-LT CVE and can be used to improve post-LT risk mitigation.
INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks as the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. The PREHAB trial revealed that prehabilitation in colorectal surgery leads to a reduction of severe complications and enhanced functional capacity. Nevertheless, risk selection for prehabilitation and the potential benefits for patients without postoperative complications remains unclear. This study aims to assess postoperative functional capacity, also in patients without postoperative complications. MATERIALS & METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of the PREHAB trial. Functional capacity tests, including cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), steep ramp test (SRT), 6-min walking test (6MWT), stair climb test (SCT), 30" sit-to-stand test (STS), timed-up-and-go test (TUG), and muscle strength assessments, were conducted at baseline (T0) and 4 weeks postoperatively (T3). The primary outcome was the relative change in functional capacity from baseline to postoperative (ΔT0-T3) per group (i.e., prehabilitation vs control). Secondary, identical analysis were performed for patients without postoperative complications in each group. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis included 251 patients. For postoperative functional capacity, prehabilitation patients showed improvements in VO2peak (p = 0.024), VO2AT (p = 0.017), SRT (p = 0.001), 6MWT (p = 0.049), SCT (p = 0.012), and STS (p = 0.001) compared to the control group. Regarding muscle strength, prehabilitation patients showed improvements in estimated 1RM lateral pull down (p = 0.016), 1RM chest press (p = 0.001), 1RM leg press (p = 0.001) and HGS (p = 0.005) compared to controls. Additionally, prehabilitation patients more often reached baseline levels at T3 in VO2AT (p = 0.037), SRT (p = 0.008), 6MWT (p = 0.013), STS (p = 0.012), estimated 1RM lateral pull down (p = 0.002), 1RM chest press (p = 0.001) and 1RM leg press (p = 0.001) compared to controls. Moreover, even patients without postoperative complications in the prehabilitation group showed better postoperative functional capacity and more often reached baseline levels at T3, compared to controls. CONCLUSION: Multimodal prehabilitation in CRC surgery is associated with improved postoperative functional capacity, even in patients without postoperative complications.
BACKGROUND: Elective treatment options for aortic abdominal aneurysms include open repair or the less-invasive endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Recovery from EVAR is generally considered easier and faster than open repair. Despite this, EVAR remains a major procedure, and average return to preoperative quality of life is at least 3 months. The purpose of this study is to determine the safety and feasibility of multimodal prehabilitation, a multidisciplinary preoperative optimization intervention, in patients undergoing EVAR and its impact on perioperative functional capacity and quality of life. METHODS: Candidates for EVAR with an infra-renal abdominal aortic aneurysm <7.5cm were invited to participate in a 6-week multimodal prehabilitation program that included (1) supervised and home-based exercise, (2) nutritional support, (3) psychosocial support, and (4) smoking cessation. Functional capacity and quality of life were assessed at baseline, before surgery and 6 weeks postoperatively. Recruitment rate, safety, and compliance were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients were included, 17 males (70%) and 7 females (30%). No adverse events occurred during the program. Compliance to each component of the program (median [Q1-Q3]) was 66% [67] for supervised training, 100% [67] for home-based training, and 100% [100] for nutrition. The multimodal prehabilitation program elicited a significant increase in functional capacity and quality of life preoperatively. CONCLUSION: Multimodal prehabilitation for patients awaiting EVAR is feasible and safe. Multimodal prehabilitation improves both functional capacity and quality of life preoperatively. Further research is needed to assess the impact of multimodal prehabilitation on postoperative quality of life and functional capacity. CLINICAL IMPACT: Multimodal prehabilitation is safe and feasible in patients awaiting endovascular aneurysm repair. The importance of this finding is that multimodal prehabilitation can be safely delivered preoperatively in patients awaiting EVAR. Although further research is needed, multimodal prehabilitation seems to improve preoperative functional capacity and quality of life. This could have an impact for the future implementation of prehabilitation interventions in order to increase functional reserve and quality of life preoperatively so that this high-risk population can cope better with the surgical stress and return to their normal life faster postoperatively.
BACKGROUND: To establish the feasibility and safety of multimodal prehabilitation (MP), and to obtain pilot data on the change in quality of life, functional walking capacity, and the need for surgery for a full-scale trial. METHODS: Pilot randomized controlled trial that included patients older than 50 years old suffering from moderate to severe intermittent claudication and who were candidates for endovascular revascularization (ER). Participants were excluded if they presented with ischemic rest pain, gangrene or ulceration of the index leg, significant lesions in the iliac vessels, planned surgical bypass, comorbidities in which exercise was contraindicated or if they were unable to speak English or French. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 12 weeks of MP or institutional standard of care (unsupervised walking advice). MP consisted of i)1 weekly supervised exercise session; ii) home-based exercise prescription; iii) nutritional counseling and supplementation; iv) smoking cessation therapy; and v) psychosocial support. Feasibility and safety were measured with recruitment and retention rates, as well as the occurrence of any adverse events. In addition, barriers to attend supervised sessions and compliance to each component were assessed. Change in functional walking capacity, health-related quality of life, and the rates of patients deciding not to undergo ER were collected and analyzed throughout the follow-up period of 12 months. RESULTS: Of the 37 patients referred for eligibility, 27 (73%) accepted to participate in the trial and were randomized. Of the 27 patients included, 24 completed the 12-week program. Adherence to each prehabilitation component was 83% interquartile range [72,93] for supervised exercise, 90% [83,96] for home-based exercise and 69% [45,93] for nutritional sessions. Fifty percent of patients were referred for and underwent psychosocial intervention and 40% of the active smokers enrolled in the smoking cessation program. No adverse events were observed during the program. The 2 main barriers for not fully adhering to the intervention were excessive pain while performing the exercises and the difficulty to keep up with the prescribed exercises. A statistically significant mean change (standard deviation (SD)) was seen in the MP group versus standard of care for functional capacity, mean (SD) 6 Min Walk Test 60 (74) vs. -11 (40) meters P < 0.05, and quality of life mean (SD) VascuQol 1.15 (0.54) vs. -0.3 (1.09) points P < 0.05. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in the rates of patients deciding to undergo ER during the 1-year follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot trial demonstrate that MP is safe and feasible. A 12-week MP program seems to improve quality of life and functional walking capacity to a greater extent than unsupervised walking advice. There is a need for a large-scale trial to investigate the effectiveness of MP at improving quality of life and assessing its impact on the rates of patients deciding not to undergo or delay ER. The long-term functional and quality of life outcomes of the patients deciding to undergo ER after prehabilitation also need to be assessed.
(1) Background and aim: This study aimed to investigate the impact of prehabilitation on the postoperative outcomes of heart transplantation and its cost-effectiveness. (2) Methods: This single-center, ambispective cohort study included forty-six candidates for elective heart transplantation from 2017 to 2021 attending a multimodal prehabilitation program consisting of supervised exercise training, physical activity promotion, nutritional optimization, and psychological support. The postoperative course was compared to a control cohort consisting of patients transplanted from 2014 to 2017 and those contemporaneously not involved in prehabilitation. (3) Results: A significant improvement was observed in preoperative functional capacity (endurance time 281 vs. 728 s, p < 0.001) and quality-of-life (Minnesota score 58 vs. 47, p = 0.046) after the program. No exercise-related events were registered. The prehabilitation cohort showed a lower rate and severity of postoperative complications (comprehensive complication index 37 vs. 31, p = 0.033), lower mechanical ventilation time (37 vs. 20 h, p = 0.032), ICU stay (7 vs. 5 days, p = 0.01), total hospitalization stay (23 vs. 18 days, p = 0.008) and less need for transfer to nursing/rehabilitation facilities after hospital discharge (31% vs. 3%, p = 0.009). A cost-consequence analysis showed that prehabilitation did not increase the total surgical process costs. (4) Conclusions: Multimodal prehabilitation before heart transplantation has benefits on short-term postoperative outcomes potentially attributable to enhancement of physical status, without cost-increasing.
Importance: Colorectal surgery is associated with substantial morbidity rates and a lowered functional capacity. Optimization of the patient's condition in the weeks prior to surgery may attenuate these unfavorable sequelae. Objective: To determine whether multimodal prehabilitation before colorectal cancer surgery can reduce postoperative complications and enhance functional recovery. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PREHAB randomized clinical trial was an international, multicenter trial conducted in teaching hospitals with implemented enhanced recovery after surgery programs. Adult patients with nonmetastasized colorectal cancer were assessed for eligibility and randomized to either prehabilitation or standard care. Both arms received standard perioperative care. Patients were enrolled from June 2017 to December 2020, and follow-up was completed in December 2021. However, this trial was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Interventions: The 4-week in-hospital supervised multimodal prehabilitation program consisted of a high-intensity exercise program 3 times per week, a nutritional intervention, psychological support, and a smoking cessation program when needed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) score, number of patients with CCI score more than 20, and improved walking capacity expressed as the 6-minute walking distance 4 weeks postoperatively. Results: In the intention-to-treat population of 251 participants (median [IQR] age, 69 [60-76] years; 138 [55%] male), 206 (82%) had tumors located in the colon and 234 (93%) underwent laparoscopic- or robotic-assisted surgery. The number of severe complications (CCI score >20) was significantly lower favoring prehabilitation compared with standard care (21 of 123 [17.1%] vs 38 of 128 [29.7%]; odds ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.26-0.87]; P = .02). Participants in prehabilitation encountered fewer medical complications (eg, respiratory) compared with participants receiving standard care (19 of 123 [15.4%] vs 35 of 128 [27.3%]; odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.26-0.89]; P = .02). Four weeks after surgery, 6-minute walking distance did not differ significantly between groups when compared with baseline (mean difference prehabilitation vs standard care 15.6 m [95% CI, -1.4 to 32.6]; P = .07). Secondary parameters of functional capacity in the postoperative period generally favored prehabilitation compared with standard care. Conclusions and Relevance: This PREHAB trial demonstrates the benefit of a multimodal prehabilitation program before colorectal cancer surgery as reflected by fewer severe and medical complications postoperatively and an optimized postoperative recovery compared with standard care. Trial Registration: trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR5947.
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Robotic Surgical Procedures , Adult , Humans , Male , Aged , Female , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Treatment Outcome , Preoperative Exercise , Preoperative Care , Pandemics , Patient Participation , Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Postoperative Complications/etiology
PURPOSE: To define the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on hospital surgical activity and assess the incidence of perioperative COVID-19 within two protocolized screening pathways for elective and non-elective surgery. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of adults undergoing surgery during the COVID-19 outbreak. The elective pathway included telephone surveys and a quantitative polymerase-chain-reaction test (RT-PCR) only for patients who were asymptomatic and at low risk of infection. Only patients with negative screening underwent surgery. In the non-elective pathway, preoperative screening was performed during the hospital admission. RESULTS: Among 835 patients considered for the elective pathway, 725 had negative RT-PCR results and underwent surgery. This reflects an 83% reduction in surgical activity from 2019. Moreover, 596 patients underwent non-elective surgery, representing a 28% reduction. Preoperatively, 39 patients (6.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and underwent surgery through the non-elective pathway, vs. none in the elective pathway (p < 0.001). Postoperatively, 1.4% of elective surgery patients and 2.2% of non-elective surgery patients tested positive (p > 0.05). Mortality was higher in non-elective surgery (0.6% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001) and in patients with COVID-19 (0% vs. 14%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The low incidence of COVID-19 in elective surgeries during the outbreak demonstrates the importance and effectiveness of preoperative screening, combining surveys and RT-PCR.
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Prospective Studies , Triage , Elective Surgical Procedures
BACKGROUND: Motorized Spiral Enteroscopy (MSE) reduces procedure time and increases insertion depth into the small bowel; however, there is scarce evidence on factors affecting MSE efficacy. AIMS: To evaluate diagnostic yield and adverse events of MSE including patients with prior major abdominal surgery. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted on patients undergoing MSE from June 2019 to December 2021. Demographic characteristics, procedure time, depth of maximum insertion (DMI), technical success, diagnostic yield, and adverse events were collected. RESULTS: Seventy-four anterograde (54.4%) and 62 retrograde (45.6%) enteroscopies were performed in 117 patients (64 males, median age 67 years). Fifty patients (42.7%) had prior major abdominal surgery. Technical success was 91.9% for anterograde and 90.3% for retrograde route. Diagnostic yield was 71.6% and 61.3%, respectively. The median DMI was 415 cm (264-585) for anterograde and 120 cm (37-225) for retrograde enteroscopy. In patients with prior major abdominal surgery, MSE showed significantly longer small bowel insertion time (38 vs 29 min, p = 0.004), with similar diagnostic yield (61 vs 71.4%, p = 0.201) and DMI (315 vs 204 cm, p = 0.226). The overall adverse event rate was 10.3% (SAE 1.5%), with no differences related to prior abdominal surgery (p = 0.598). Patients with prior surgeries directly involving the gastrointestinal tract showed lower DMI (189 vs 374 cm, p = 0.019) with equal exploration time (37.5 vs 38 min, p = 0.642) compared to those with other abdominal surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: MSE is effective and safe in patients with major abdominal surgery, although longer procedure times were observed. A lower depth of insertion was detected in patients with gastrointestinal surgery.
Intestinal Diseases , Laparoscopy , Male , Humans , Aged , Intestinal Diseases/diagnosis , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/adverse effects , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/methods , Prospective Studies , Intestine, Small/surgery , Double-Balloon Enteroscopy/methods
IMPORTANCE: Prehabilitation has potential for improving surgical outcomes as shown in previous randomized controlled trials. However, a marked efficacy-effectiveness gap is limiting its scalability. Comprehensive analyses of deployment of the intervention in real-life scenarios are required. OBJECTIVE: To assess health outcomes and cost of prehabilitation. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with a control group built using propensity score-matching techniques. SETTING: Prehabilitation Unit in a tertiary-care university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Candidates for major digestive, cardiac, thoracic, gynecologic, or urologic surgeries. INTERVENTION: Prehabilitation program, including supervised exercise training, promotion of physical activity, nutritional optimization, and psychological support. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The comprehensive complication index, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital costs per patient until 30 days after surgery. Patients were classified by the degree of program completion and level of surgical aggression for sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The analysis of the entire study group did not show differences in study outcomes between prehabilitation and control groups (n=328 each). The per-protocol analysis, including only patients completing the program (n=112, 34%), showed a reduction in mean hospital stay [9.9 (7.2) vs 12.8 (12.4) days; P =0.035]. Completers undergoing highly aggressive surgeries (n=60) additionally showed reduction in mean intensive care unit stay [2.3 (2.7) vs 3.8 (4.2) days; P =0.021] and generated mean cost savings per patient of 3092 (32% cost reduction) ( P =0.007). Five priority areas for action to enhance service efficiencies were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The study indicates a low rate of completion of the intervention and identifies priority areas for re-design of service delivery to enhance the effectiveness of prehabilitation.
Preoperative Care , Preoperative Exercise , Humans , Female , Preoperative Care/methods , Prospective Studies , Exercise , Exercise Therapy/methods , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Postoperative Complications/etiology
Multimodal preoperative prehabilitation has been shown to be effective in improving the functional capacity of cancer patients, reducing postoperative complications and the length of hospital and ICU stay after surgery. The availability of prehabilitation units that gather all the professionals involved in patient care facilitates the development of integrated and patient-centered multimodal prehabilitation programs, as well as patient adherence. This article describes the process of creating a prehabilitation unit in our center and the role of perioperative nursing. Initially, the project was launched with the performance of a research study on prehabilitation for gastrointestinal cancer surgery. The results of this study encouraged us to continue the implementation of the unit. Progressively, multimodal prehabilitation programs focusing on each type of patient and surgery were developed. Currently, our prehabilitation unit is a care unit that has its own gym, which allows supervised training of cancer patients prior to surgery. Likewise, the evolution of perioperative nursing in the unit is described: from collaboration and assistance in the integral evaluation of the patient at the beginning to current work as a case manager; a task that has proven extremely important for the comprehensive and continuous care of the patient.
Introduction: The efficacy-effectiveness gap constitutes a well-known limitation for adoption of digitally enabled integrated care services. The current report describes the co-creation process undertaken (2016-2021) to deploy a prehabilitation service at Hospital Clínic de Barcelona with the final aim of achieving sustainable adoption and facilitate site transferability. Methods: An implementation research approach with a population-based orientation, combining experience-based co-design and quality improvement methodologies, was applied. We undertook several design-thinking sessions (Oct-Nov 2017, June 2021 and December 2021) to generate and follow-up a work plan fostering service scalability. The implementation process was assessed using the Comprehensive Framework for Implementation Research, leading to the identification of key performance indicators. Discussion: Personalization and modularity of the intervention according to patients' surgical risk were identified as core traits to enhance patients' adherence and value generation. A digitally enabled service workflow, with an adaptive and collaborative case management approach, should combine face-to-face and remotely supervised sessions with intelligent systems for patients' and professionals' decision support. The business model envisages operational costs financed by savings generated by the service. Conclusions: Evidence-based co-creation, combining appropriate methodologies and a structured evaluation framework, was key to address challenges associated with sustainable prehabilitation service adoption, scalability and transferability.
BACKGROUND: Multimodal prehabilitation programs that combine exercise training, nutritional support, and optimize psychological status have demonstrated efficacy in reducing post-operative complications in non-gynecological abdominal surgeries; however, the benefit in advanced ovarian cancer is unclear. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To compare the post-operative complications of a multimodal prehabilitation program in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer with standard pre-operative care. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Multimodal prehabilitation reduces post-operative complications in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer and subsequently reduces the length of hospital stay and time to initiation of adjuvant therapy. TRIAL DESIGN: This prospective, multi-institutional, randomized clinical trial will randomize candidates for surgery to either the standard of care or multimodal prehabilitation consisting of (1) 2- or 3-weekly supervised high-intensity resistance training sessions and promotion of physical activity through a mobile phone application; (2) respiratory physiotherapy; (3) nutrition counseling with supplementation as needed; and (4) weekly psychological and cognitive behavioral sessions. Baseline, pre-operative and 1 month post-operative data will be collected. An independent blinded evaluator will collect intra- and post-operative surgical data. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Women with advanced ovarian cancer International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2014) stage III or IV scheduled to undergo primary debulking surgery, interval debulking surgery,or secondary or tertiary cytoreductive surgery will be included. Women are eligible if they are able to undergo a minimum of 2 weeks of prehabilitation prior to surgery. Patients with <75% adherence to the total program will be excluded. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: Post-operative complications in patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing cytoreductive surgery according to the Comprehensive Complication Index. SAMPLE SIZE: 146 patients will be included, 73 in each group. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: Accrual should be completed in December 2024 with results reported soon thereafter. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04862325.
BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation programs as part of ERAS protocols are being increasingly used in multiple surgeries, improving postoperative outcomes. Data regarding prehabilitation programs in patients awaiting liver transplantation and their outcomes is scarce. OBJECTIVES: To identify whether prehabilitation programs based on exercise training conducted prior to liver transplantation improve short-term postoperative outcomes, and to provide expert panel recommendations. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. METHODS: Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. Studies included those evaluating postoperative outcomes, as well as those evaluating functional outcomes. PROSPERO ID: CRD42021236305. RESULTS: Of the 170 studies screened, only one assessed the primary objective. Most studies focus on the preoperative impact of exercise training on aerobic capacity, muscle mass and/or strength, showing positive effects and no significant adverse events, but are underpowered and with heterogenous designs and interventions. The non-randomized observational study which assessed relevant postoperative outcomes, showed a non-significant trend towards reduced 90-day readmission rate and shorter length of stay in the prehabilitation group. CONCLUSIONS: Prehabilitation prior to liver transplantation is unlikely to be harmful, and likely to have short term benefits on functional status. We cautiously recommend prehabilitation on the basis of absence of harm and possibility of benefit (Quality of Evidence; Very Low | Grade of Recommendation; Low).
Liver Transplantation , Preoperative Care , Humans , Preoperative Care/methods , Exercise , Postoperative Period , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Observational Studies as Topic
INTRODUCTION: Treatment for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) comprises cytoreductive surgery combined with chemotherapy. Multimodal prehabilitation programmes before surgery have demonstrated efficacy in postoperative outcomes in non-gynaecological surgeries. However, the viability and effects of these programmes on patients with AOC are unknown. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and postoperative impact of a multimodal prehabilitation programme in AOC patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: This single-centre, before-and-after intervention pilot study included 34 patients in two cohorts: the prehabilitation cohort prospectively included 15 patients receiving supervised exercise, nutritional optimisation, and psychological preparation from December 2019 to January 2021; the control cohort included 19 consecutive patients between January 2018 and November 2019. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines were followed. RESULTS: The overall adherence to the multimodal prehabilitation programme was 80%, with 86.7% adherence to exercise training, 100% adherence to nutritional optimisation, and 80% adherence to psychological preparation. The median hospital stay was shorter in the prehabilitation cohort (5 (IQR, 4-6) vs. 7 days (IQR, 5-9) in the control cohort, p = 0.04). Differences in postoperative complications using the comprehensive complication index (CCI) were not significant (CCI score: 9.3 (SD 12.12) in the prehabilitation cohort vs. 16.61 (SD 16.89) in the control cohort, p = 0.08). The median time to starting chemotherapy was shorter in the prehabilitation cohort (25 (IQR, 23-25) vs. 35 days (IQR, 28-45) in the control cohort, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal prehabilitation programme before cytoreductive surgery is feasible in AOC patients with no major adverse effects, and results in significantly shorter hospital stays and time to starting chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: The main objective was to assess repeatability and learning effect of the 6-min walk test (6MWT) in a cohort of preoperative cancer patients referred to a prehabilitation program. As a secondary objective, we aimed to identify determinants of improvement in the second test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Secondary analysis from a large prospective study on the implementation of a multimodal prehabilitation program in a real-life scenario. Eligible patients were assessed at baseline before starting the prehabilitation program. The 6MWT was conducted according to the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines with two tests being performed under identical conditions separated by 30 min. The distance covered (in meters) and the physiological responses (heart rate, oxygen saturation, fatigue, and dyspnea) to each test were recorded and compared. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients (60.9%) were analyzed. Repeatability of the distance covered with the 6MWT was excellent (ICC = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92-0.99), but a mean increase of + 19.5 m (95% CI: 15.6-23.5 m; p = < .001) in the second test was found, showing a learning effect with limits of agreement between - 31.3 and 70.4 m. Coefficient of variation was 4%. No clinical factor was found to be associated with an improvement in the second test. CONCLUSIONS: The 6MWT showed excellent repeatability in preoperative cancer patients, but a significant learning effect is present. No associated factors with a clinically meaningful improvement in the second test were identified. In light of these findings, two attempts of the 6MWT should be encouraged in this population.
Neoplasms , Preoperative Exercise , Heart Rate , Humans , Neoplasms/surgery , Prospective Studies , Referral and Consultation
BACKGROUND: Pain is a clinical feature of COVID-19, however, data about persistent pain after hospital discharge, especially among ICU survivors is scarce. The aim of this study was to explore the incidence and characteristics of new-onset pain and its impact on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), and to quantify the presence of mood disorders in critically ill COVID-19 survivors. METHODS: This is a preliminary report of PAIN-COVID trial (NCT04394169) presenting a descriptive analysis in critically ill COVID-19 survivors, following in person interview 1 month after hospital discharge. Pain was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory, the Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. HRQoL was evaluated with the EQ 5D/5L, and mood disorders with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: From 27 May to 19 July 2020, 203 patients were consecutively screened for eligibility, and 65 were included in this analysis. Of these, 50.8% patients reported new-onset pain; 38.5% clinically significant pain (numerical rating score ≥3 for average pain intensity); 16.9% neuropathic pain; 4.6% pain catastrophizing thoughts, 44.6% pain in ≥2 body sites and 7.7% widespread pain. Patients with new-onset pain had a worse EQ-VAS and EQ index value (p < 0.001). Pain intensity was negatively correlated to both the former (Spearman ρ: -0.546, p < 0.001) and the latter (Spearman ρ: -0.387, p = 0.001). HADS anxiety and depression values equal or above eight were obtained in 10.8% and 7.7% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: New-onset pain in critically ill COVID-19 survivors is frequent, and it is associated with a lower HRQoL. Trial registration No.: NCT04394169. Registered 19 May 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04394169. SIGNIFICANCE: A substantial proportion of severe COVID-19 survivors may develop clinically significant persistent pain, post-intensive care syndrome and chronic ICU-related pain. Given the number of infections worldwide and the unprecedented size of the population of critical illness survivors, providing information about the incidence of new-onset pain, its characteristics, and its influence on the patients' quality of life might help establish and improve pain management strategies.
COVID-19 , Quality of Life , Critical Illness , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Survivors
Prehabilitation has shown its potential for most intra-cavity surgery patients on enhancing preoperative functional capacity and postoperative outcomes. However, its large-scale implementation is limited by several constrictions, such as: i) unsolved practicalities of the service workflow, ii) challenges associated to change management in collaborative care; iii) insufficient access to prehabilitation; iv) relevant percentage of program drop-outs; v) need for program personalization; and, vi) economical sustainability. Transferability of prehabilitation programs from the hospital setting to the community would potentially provide a new scenario with greater accessibility, as well as offer an opportunity to effectively address the aforementioned issues and, thus, optimize healthcare value generation. A core aspect to take into account for an optimal management of prehabilitation programs is to use proper technological tools enabling: i) customizable and interoperable integrated care pathways facilitating personalization of the service and effective engagement among stakeholders; ii) remote monitoring (i.e. physical activity, physiological signs and patient-reported outcomes and experience measures) to support patient adherence to the program and empowerment for self-management; and, iii) use of health risk assessment supporting decision making for personalized service selection. The current manuscript details a proposal to bring digital innovation to community-based prehabilitation programs. Moreover, this approach has the potential to be adopted by programs supporting long-term management of cancer patients, chronic patients and prevention of multimorbidity in subjects at risk.
