Socioeconomic status influences participation in cancer prehabilitation and preparation for surgical recovery: A pooled retrospective analysis using a validated area-level socioeconomic status metric.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation employs exercise, nutrition, and psychological interventions to optimize physiological status in preparation for surgery. First, we described the extent to which material deprivation index score (MDIS) influenced prehabilitation participation. Second, we evaluated the extent to which prehabilitation influenced recovery as compared to control. METHODS: Pooled patient records from prospective multimodal prehabilitation studies in oncologic surgery were retrospectively examined. Patient postal codes were linked to their MDIS, a validated area-level socioeconomic status (SES) metric, as quintiles 1-5 (1 = highest SES). Functional capacity was evaluated with the 6-min walking test (6MWT) at baseline, before, and 8 weeks post-surgery. Influence of prehabilitation on length of hospital stay (LOS) was explored using generalized linear models with a negative binomial distribution adjusted for age, sex, surgical population, and MDIS. RESULTS: Recruitment records were available from 2014 onwards, yielding 1013 eligible patients for prehabilitation participation with MDIS data. Fewer patients with a low SES enrolled (Q1:62% vs. Q5:47%; P = 0.01) and remained in prehabilitation studies (Q1: 59% vs. Q5: 45%; P = 0.07). Prehabilitation study records were available from 2008 onward, yielding 886 enrolled patients with MDIS data (n = 510 prehabilitation, n = 376 control). Preoperative 6MWT similarly improved by > 20 m in response to prehabilitation across SES strata (P < 0.05). Postoperative 6MWT could not be evaluated due to substantial missing data. Prehabilitation had a significant protective influence on LOS, as compared to control, in unadjusted and adjusted models [adjusted IRR:0.77 (95% CI:0.68 to 0.87; P < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that prehabilitation is effective across all SES; however, participation across SES quintiles was not equal. Barriers to participation must be identified and addressed. Once these barriers are addressed, prehabilitation may reduce surgical disparities among SES.

The effect of early mobilization protocols on postoperative outcomes following abdominal and thoracic surgery: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Early mobilization is considered an important element of postoperative care; however, how best to implement this intervention in clinical practice is unknown. This systematic review summarizes the evidence regarding the impact of specific early mobilization protocols on postoperative outcomes after abdominal and thoracic surgery. METHOD: The review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched 8 electronic databases to identify studies comparing patients receiving a specific protocol of early mobilization to a control group. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Downs and Black tool. RESULTS: Four studies in abdominal surgery (3 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 1 observational prospective study) and 4 studies in thoracic surgery (3 RCTs and 1 observational retrospective study) were identified. None of the 5 studies evaluating postoperative complications reported differences between groups. One of 4 studies evaluating duration of stay reported a significant decrease in the intervention group. One of 3 studies evaluating gastrointestinal function reported differences in favor of the intervention group. One of 4 studies evaluating performance-based outcomes reported differences in favor of the intervention group. One of 5 studies evaluating patient-reported outcomes reported differences in favor of the intervention group. Overall methodologic quality was poor. CONCLUSION: Few comparative studies have evaluated the impact of early mobilization protocols on outcomes after abdominal and thoracic surgery. The quality of these studies was poor and results were conflicting. Although bed rest is harmful, there is little available evidence to guide clinicians in effective early mobilization protocols that increase mobilization and improve outcomes.

Prehabilitation versus rehabilitation: a randomized control trial in patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The preoperative period (prehabilitation) may represent a more appropriate time than the postoperative period to implement an intervention. The impact of prehabilitation on recovery of function al exercise capacity was thus studied in patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer. METHODS: A parallel-arm single-blind superiority randomized controlled trial was conducted. Seventy-seven patients were randomized to receive either prehabilitation (n = 38) or rehabilitation (n = 39). Both groups received a home-based intervention of moderate aerobic and resistance exercises, nutritional counseling with protein supplementation, and relaxation exercises initiated either 4 weeks before surgery (prehabilitation) or immediately after surgery (rehabilitation), and continued for 8 weeks after surgery. Patients were managed with an enhanced recovery pathway. Primary outcome was functional exercise capacity measured using the validated 6-min walk test. RESULTS: Median duration of prehabilitation was 24.5 days. While awaiting surgery, functional walking capacity increased (≥ 20 m) in a higher proportion of the prehabilitation group compared with the rehabilitation group (53 vs. 15%, adjusted P = 0.006). Complication rates and duration of hospital stay were similar. The difference between baseline and 8-week 6-min walking test was significantly higher in the prehabilitation compared with the rehabilitation group (+23.7 m [SD, 54.8] vs. -21.8 m [SD, 80.7]; mean difference 45.4 m [95% CI, 13.9 to 77.0]). A higher proportion of the prehabilitation group were also recovered to or above baseline exercise capacity at 8 weeks compared with the rehabilitation group (84 vs. 62%, adjusted P = 0.049). CONCLUSION: Meaningful changes in postoperative functional exercise capacity can be achieved with a prehabilitation program.

A comparison of the validity of two indirect utility instruments as measures of postoperative recovery.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analyses of surgical interventions require valid measures of postoperative recovery. The objective of this study was to compare the validity of two indirect utility instruments, the Short Form 6D (SF-6D) and EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D), as measures of postoperative recovery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing elective colorectal resection at two university-affiliated institutions from October 2012-October 2013 completed the SF-6D and EQ-5D (including the EQ-visual analog scale [EQ-VAS]) at baseline (before surgery), and at 4 and 8 wk after surgery. Responsiveness and construct validity were assessed through a priori hypotheses. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were included. The SF-6D was the most responsive to the expected postoperative changes at 4 and 8 wk compared with the EQ-5D and the EQ-VAS. The 4-wk SF-6D, EQ-5D, and EQ-VAS discriminated between patients with and without complications after controlling for confounders with adjusted mean differences of -0.070 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.126 to -0.015), -0.133 (95% CI -0.231, -0.030), and -7.91 (95% CI -14.77, -1.04), respectively. Mean SF-6D and EQ-5D values were significantly different from the US population norms at all time points, but the magnitude of change was highest for the SF-6D. The strength of correlation between all three instruments was moderate at all time points (r=0.550-0.684, all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The SF-6D preference-based health index appears to be a more valid measure of postoperative recovery than the EQ-5D and EQ-VAS in surgical cost-effectiveness analyses.

Impact of a trimodal prehabilitation program on functional recovery after colorectal cancer surgery: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing colorectal cancer resections are at risk for delayed recovery. Prehabilitation aims to enhance functional capacity preoperatively for better toleration of surgery and to facilitate recovery. The authors previously demonstrated the limited impact of a prehabilitation program using exercise alone. They propose an expanded trimodal prehabilitation program that adds nutritional counseling, protein supplementation, and anxiety reduction to a moderate exercise program. This study aimed to estimate the impact of this trimodal program on the recovery of functional capacity compared with standard surgical care. METHODS: Consecutive patients were enrolled in this pre- and postintervention study over a 23-month period. The postoperative recovery for 42 consecutive patients enrolled in the prehabilitation program was compared with that of 45 patients assessed before the intervention began. The primary outcome was functional walking capacity (6-min walk test [6MWT]). The secondary outcomes included self-reported physical activity (CHAMPS questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (SF-36). Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range [IQR]) and were analyzed using Chi-square and Student's t test. All p values lower than 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: The prehabilitation and control groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class. There was no difference in walking capacity at the first assessment (6MWT distance, 422 ± 87 vs 402 ± 57 m; p = 0.21). During the prehabilitation period lasting a median of 33 days (range, 21-46 days), functional walking capacity improved by 40 ± 40 m (p < 0.01). The postoperative complication rates and the hospital length of stay were similar. The patients in the prehabilitation program had better postoperative walking capacity at both 4 weeks (mean difference, 51.5 ± 93 m; p = 0.01) and 8 weeks (mean difference, 84.5 ± 83 m; p < 0.01). At 8 weeks, 81 % of the prehabilitated patients were recovered compared with 40 % of the control group (p < 0.01). The prehabilitation group also reported higher levels of physical activity before and after surgery. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, a 1-month trimodal prehabilitation program improved postoperative functional recovery. A randomized trial is ongoing (NCT01356264).