ABSTRACT
Introduction Enhanced recovery programmes have been established in some areas of elective surgery. This study applied enhanced recovery principles to elective oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery. Methods An enhanced recovery programme for patients undergoing open oesophagogastrectomy, total and subtotal gastrectomy for oesophageal and gastric malignancy was designed. A retrospective cohort study compared length of stay on the critical care unit (CCU), total length of inpatient stay, rates of complications and in-hospital mortality prior to (35 patients) and following (27 patients) implementation. Results In the cohort study, the median total length of stay was reduced by 3 days following oesophagogastrectomy and total gastrectomy. The median length of stay on the CCU remained the same for all patients. The rates of complications and mortality were the same. Conclusions The standardised protocol reduced the median overall length of stay but did not reduce CCU stay. Enhanced recovery principles can be applied to patients undergoing major oesophagogastrectomy and total gastrectomy as long as they have minimal or reversible co-morbidity.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Elective Surgical Procedures , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophagectomy , Gastrectomy , Perioperative Care/methods , Stomach Neoplasms/surgery , Adenocarcinoma/mortality , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Clinical Protocols , Elective Surgical Procedures/mortality , Esophageal Neoplasms/mortality , Esophagectomy/mortality , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Gastrectomy/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Perioperative Care/standards , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Program Evaluation , Retrospective Studies , Stomach Neoplasms/mortality , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There has been no reported use of Thromboelastography(®) (TEG(®) ) in assessing thrombocytopenic haematological malignancy (HM) patients experiencing bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether there are differences in TEG(®) variables in thrombocytopenic HM patients experiencing clinically significant bleeding compared with those not experiencing bleeding. METHODS: Thirty adult patients with HM and a total platelet count (TPC) of ≤ 30 × 10(9) L(-1) were observed for greater than or equal to grade two World Health Organisation (WHO) bleeding episodes for 72 h. They had TPC, TEG(®) parameters [maximal amplitude (MA), reaction time (R-time), alpha (α-angle) and functional fibrinogen (FF) levels], activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and prothrombin time (PT) measured at inclusion, 24 and 48 h. RESULTS: Five patients had nine significant bleeding episodes. Patients bleeding (n) were all more hypocoaguable when measured by TEG(®) than patients not bleeding at inclusion n = 4 (MA: 16.9 vs 31.8 mm, P < 0.01; R-time: 10.1 vs 7.5 min, P = 0.02; α-angle: 18.8 vs 28.4, P < 0.01; FF: 182.4 vs 204 mg dL(-1), P < 0.01), at 24 h n = 3 (MA 18 vs 29.4 mm, P = 0.02; R-time: 9.4 vs 7.4 mins, P = 0.02; α-angle: 21.6 vs 26.5, P = 0.04 and FF: 168 vs 201 mg dL(-1) P = 0.01) and at 48 h n = 2 (MA: 29.7 vs 23.0, P = 0.02; R-time: 8.1 vs 6.7 mins, P = 0.05; α-angle: 22.6 vs 26.5, P = 0.04; FF: 170 vs 208 mg dL(-1), P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in TPC, APTT or PT between patients that bled and those that did not at each time point. CONCLUSIONS: Thrombocytopenic HM patients experiencing bleeding are hypocoaguable on TEG(®).
