Effect of a multimodal prehabilitation program on postoperative recovery and morbidity in patients undergoing a totally minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Postoperative morbidity following esophagectomy remains substantial. Studies in major abdominal surgery have shown that prehabilitation can improve postoperative outcomes. This single-center study investigated the influence of prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (MIE-IL). Data were collected on patients that underwent a MIE-IL and received a fully standardized enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program, between October 2015 and February 2020. The intervention group comprised patients enrolled in the PREPARE prehabilitation program. The control group comprised a retrospective cohort with similar ERAS care, prior to implementation of PREPARE. Postoperative outcomes included (functional) recovery, length of hospital stay (LOHS), cardiopulmonary complications (CPC) and other predefined outcomes. The PREPARE group comprised 52 and control group 43 patients. Median time to functional recovery was 6 vs. 7 days (P = 0.074) and LOHS 7 vs. 8 days (P = 0.039) in PREPARE and control patients, respectively. Hospital readmission rate was 9.6 vs. 14.3% (P = 0.484). A 17% reduction in thirty-day overall postoperative complication rate was observed in PREPARE patients, but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.106). Similarly, a clinically relevant reduction of 14% in CPC rate was observed (P = 0.190). Anastomotic leakage rate was similar (9.6 vs 14.0%; P = 0.511). Despite no difference in severity (Clavien-Dindo) of complications (P = 0.311), ICU readmission rate was lower in PREPARE patients (3.8 vs. 16.3%, P = 0.039). Prehabilitation prior to MIE-IL led to a shorter LOHS and reduced ICU readmission rate. Additionally, a clinically relevant improvement in postoperative recovery and reduced morbidity rate was observed in prehabilitated patient.

Effect of direct oral feeding following minimally invasive esophagectomy on costs and quality of life.

AIMS: Following (minimally invasive) esophagectomy, patients often rely on tube feeding, since oral intake is often delayed. Consequently, additional support by a dietician and home care is needed until oral intake is commenced. In this study, the effects of direct start of oral feeding compared with tube feeding following an esophagectomy was evaluated on treatment costs and health-related quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Patients undergoing a minimally invasive esophagectomy were randomized in the NUTRIENT II study between controls (nil-per-mouth during 5 days and subsequent tube feeding) and a group in whom oral feeding was started directly postoperatively. Total hospital costs (including readmission and outpatient costs) and home care data for a period of 6 months after surgery were analyzed. QoL (measured using EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC OG-25) was assessed preoperatively and 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: A total 132 patients were included (n = 65 direct oral feeding group and n = 67 control group). Mean patient hospital costs were €26,014 in the intervention group over a 6-month period compared to €26,989 in the control group (p = .825). Furthermore, people with direct oral feeding required significantly less home care assistance; i.e. 23 (48.9%) intervention patients versus 37 (77.1%) control patients (p = .004). Also, QoL in patients with direct oral feeding progressed more quickly when compared to the control group. LIMITATIONS: Hospital costs were derived from a single hospital unit whereas costs from all the participating units may be a better reflection of the cost deviation. Availability of homecare data was limited, leading to difficulty in detecting differences in costs. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that direct oral feeding leads to similar total costs and a significantly reduced need for home care assistance. Furthermore, QoL in intervention group increased more quickly when compared to the control group.

Direct Oral Feeding Following Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (NUTRIENT II trial): An International, Multicenter, Open-label Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing an esophagectomy are often kept nil-by-mouth postoperatively out of fear for increasing anastomotic leakage and pulmonary complications. This study investigates the effect of direct start of oral feeding following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) compared with standard of care. BACKGROUND: Elements of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been successfully introduced in patients undergoing an esophagectomy. However, start of oral intake, which is an essential part of the ERAS protocols, remains a matter of debate. METHODS: Patients in this multicenter, international randomized controlled trial were randomized to directly start oral feeding (intervention) after a MIE with intrathoracic anastomosis or to receive nil-by-mouth and tube feeding for 5 days postoperative (control group). Primary outcome was time to functional recovery. Secondary outcome parameters included anastomotic leakage, pneumonia rate, and other surgical complications scored by predefined definitions. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in the intervention (n = 65) and control (n = 67) group. Functional recovery was 7 days for patients receiving direct oral feeding compared with 8 days in the control group (P = 0.436). Anastomotic leakage rate did not differ in the intervention (18.5%) and control group (16.4%, P = 0.757). Pneumonia rates were comparable between the intervention (24.6%) and control group (34.3%, P = 0.221). Other morbidity rates were similar, except for chyle leakage, which was more prevalent in the standard of care group (P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Direct oral feeding after an esophagectomy does not affect functional recovery and did not increase incidence or severity of postoperative complications.