Patients' refusal as major limitation of early discharge after colorectal resection in an enhanced recovery program.

PURPOSE: The reduction of length of hospitalization without compromising the patient's safety constitutes the challenge of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a 3-day hospitalization after colectomy and 5-day hospitalization after proctectomy in the setting of an ERAS program. METHODS: An ERAS program was prospectively proposed to all patients who required a colorectal resection (January 2014-December 2018) with a 3- or 5-day discharge objective. The success of the program was defined by a 3-/5-day hospitalization without complications and without readmissions. RESULTS: Among 283 patients included, 232 patients had a colectomy (82%) and 51 (18%) patients a proctectomy. Eighty-six patients experienced complications (30%) including fifteen severe complications (5%). Mean hospital stay was 5.1 ± 3.7 (2-33) days. A total of 136 patients (48%) were discharged at 3-/5-day, within 9 were readmitted (3%). Discharge was delayed after 3-/5-day for complications (n = 65, 23%), CRP > 120 (n = 45, 16%) or refusal without medical reason (n = 37, 13%). The success rate of the program was 45% (n = 127). This success rate was similar between colectomy and proctectomy (p = 0.277) and between right and left colectomy (p = 0.450). In multivariate analysis, predictive factors associated with the program success were intraoperative use of lidocaine (OR 2.1 [1.1-4.1], p = 0.022), time to remove perfusion ≤ 2 days (OR 10.3 [5.4-19.6], p = 0.001), time to recover bowel movement ≤ 2 days (OR 4.0 [1.7-9.6], p = 0.002) and time to walk out of the room ≤ 2 days (OR 2.6 [1.1-6.0], p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Integrating a realistic hospitalization duration objective into an ERAS program guarantees its safety, feasibility and effectiveness in reducing hospitalization duration.

A trial of intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation in abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation with the use of low tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure is considered best practice in the care of many critically ill patients. However, its role in anesthetized patients undergoing major surgery is not known. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial, we randomly assigned 400 adults at intermediate to high risk of pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery to either nonprotective mechanical ventilation or a strategy of lung-protective ventilation. The primary outcome was a composite of major pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications occurring within the first 7 days after surgery. RESULTS: The two intervention groups had similar characteristics at baseline. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 21 of 200 patients (10.5%) assigned to lung-protective ventilation, as compared with 55 of 200 (27.5%) assigned to nonprotective ventilation (relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24 to 0.68; P=0.001). Over the 7-day postoperative period, 10 patients (5.0%) assigned to lung-protective ventilation required noninvasive ventilation or intubation for acute respiratory failure, as compared with 34 (17.0%) assigned to nonprotective ventilation (relative risk, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.61; P=0.001). The length of the hospital stay was shorter among patients receiving lung-protective ventilation than among those receiving nonprotective ventilation (mean difference, -2.45 days; 95% CI, -4.17 to -0.72; P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with a practice of nonprotective mechanical ventilation, the use of a lung-protective ventilation strategy in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery was associated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced health care utilization. (IMPROVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01282996.).

Lidocaine versus ropivacaine for perineal infiltration post-episiotomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate maternal analgesia after an episiotomy during delivery. METHODS: The present case-control study compared 2 protocols of post-episiotomy infiltration: period A, 20 mL of lidocaine 10mg/mL; period B, 20 mL of ropivacaine 7.5mg/mL. The primary study endpoint was the visual analog scale (VAS) score at 24 hours after episiotomy; secondary endpoints were the VAS scores during suturing and at 2 and 48 hours, and patient satisfaction at 48 hours. RESULTS: In total, 102 women were included in the study. The median VAS score at 24 hours was significantly lower during the ropivacaine period (3 [1.5-4]) than during the lidocaine period (4 [2-6]; P=0.004). A VAS score below 4 at 24 hours was significantly more frequent with ropivacaine (71% versus 43%; P=0.009). The VAS scores at 2 and 48 hours were also lower in the ropivacaine group (2 hours, 0 [0-1] versus 1 [0-3], P=0.01; and 48 hours, 2 [0-3] versus 3 [2-5], P<0.001). Maternal satisfaction was significantly higher in the ropivacaine group. CONCLUSION: Analgesia and maternal satisfaction were improved during the period when ropivacaine was used as opposed to lidocaine. The effect lasted for up to 48 hours.