Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society guidelines for gynecologic oncology: Addressing implementation challenges - 2023 update.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence supporting its use, many Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) recommendations remain poorly adhered to and barriers to ERAS implementation persist. In this second updated ERAS® Society guideline, a consensus for optimal perioperative care in gynecologic oncology surgery is presented, with a specific emphasis on implementation challenges. METHODS: Based on the gaps identified by clinician stakeholder groups, nine implementation challenge topics were prioritized for review. A database search of publications using Embase and PubMed was performed (2018-2023). Studies on each topic were selected with emphasis on meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohort studies. These studies were then reviewed and graded by an international panel according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS: All recommendations on ERAS implementation challenge topics are based on best available evidence. The level of evidence for each item is presented accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: The updated evidence base and recommendations for stakeholder derived ERAS implementation challenges in gynecologic oncology are presented by the ERAS® Society in this consensus review.

Outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in gynecologic oncology - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefit of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) on length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, 30-day readmission, and cost in gynecologic oncology. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for all peer-reviewed cohort studies and controlled trials on ERAS involving gynecologic oncology patients. Abstracts, commentaries, non-controlled studies, and studies without specific data on gynecologic oncology patients were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed on the primary endpoint of LOS. Subgroup analyses were performed based on risk of bias of the studies included, number of ERAS elements, and ERAS compliance. Secondary endpoints were readmission rate, complications, and cost. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies (6703 patients) were included: 5 randomized controlled trials, and 26 cohort studies. Meta-analysis of 27 studies (6345 patients) demonstrated a decrease in LOS of 1.6 days (95% confidence interval, CI 1.2-2.1) with ERAS implementation. Meta-analysis of 21 studies (4974 patients) demonstrated a 32% reduction in complications (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.83) and a 20% reduction in readmission (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-0.99) for ERAS patients. There was no difference in 30-day postoperative mortality (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23-1.6) for ERAS patients compared to controls. No difference in the odds of complications or reduction in LOS was observed based on number of included ERAS elements or reported compliance with ERAS interventions. The mean cost savings for ERAS patients was $2129 USD (95% CI $712 - $3544). CONCLUSIONS: ERAS protocols decrease LOS, complications, and cost without increasing rates of readmission or mortality in gynecologic oncology surgery. This evidence supports implementation of ERAS as standard of care in gynecologic oncology.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in gynecologic oncology: System-wide implementation and audit leads to improved value and patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Enhanced recovery pathways have been shown to reduce length of stay without increasing readmission or complications in numerous areas of surgery. Uptake of gynecologic oncology ERAS guidelines has been limited. We describe the effect of ERAS guideline implementation in gynecologic oncology on length of stay, patient outcomes, and economic impact for a province-wide single-payer system. METHODS: We compared pre- and post-guideline implementation outcomes in consecutive staging and debulking patients at two centers that provide the majority of surgical gynecologic oncology care in Alberta, Canada between March 2016 and April 2017. Clinical outcomes and compliance were obtained using the ERAS Interactive Audit System. Patients were followed until 30 days after discharge. Negative binomial regression was employed to adjust for patient characteristics. RESULTS: We assessed 152 pre-ERAS and 367 post-ERAS implementation patients. Mean compliance with ERAS care elements increased from 56% to 77.0% after implementation (p < 0.0001). Median length of stay for all surgeries decreased from 4.0 days to 3.0 days post-ERAS (p < 0.0001), which translated to an adjusted LOS decrease of 31.4% (95% CI = [21.7% - 39.9%], p < 0.0001). In medium/high complexity surgery median LOS was reduced by 2.0 days (p = 0.0005). Complications prior to discharge decreased from 53.3% to 36.2% post-ERAS (p = 0.0003). There was no significant difference in readmission (p = 0.6159), complications up to 30 days (p = 0.6274), or mortality (p = 0.3618) between the cohorts. The net cost savings per patient was $956 (95%CI: $162 to $1636). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic implementation of ERAS gynecologic oncology guidelines across a healthcare system improves patient outcomes and saves resources.