Enhanced Recovery Pathways versus Standard Care after Cystectomy: A Meta-analysis and Systemtic Review

Objective: To compare the outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and standard Care (SC) after radical cystectomy. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web ofScience, Medline and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies, and the last update was up to till October 2017 according...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hong CHENG, Shuhui SI, Yu-xiao ZHENG, Jian-zhong ZHANG, Feng QI, Dong-liang CAO, Chuan-jie ZHANG, Gui-ya JIANG, Si SUN, Xin-wei WANG
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Third Party Medicine International Publishing Group Co. Limited 2018-04-01
Series:Journal of International Translational Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.11910/2227-6394.2018.06.01.05
id doaj-2b339fa8e8e1412982a8a29b88c27288
record_format Article
spelling doaj-2b339fa8e8e1412982a8a29b88c272882020-11-24T23:07:50ZengThird Party Medicine International Publishing Group Co. Limited Journal of International Translational Medicine 2227-63942018-04-0161253310.11910/2227-6394.2018.06.01.05Enhanced Recovery Pathways versus Standard Care after Cystectomy: A Meta-analysis and Systemtic ReviewHong CHENG0Shuhui SI1Yu-xiao ZHENG2Jian-zhong ZHANG3Feng QI4Dong-liang CAO5Chuan-jie ZHANG6Gui-ya JIANG7Si SUN8Xin-wei WANG9Department of Oncology, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital & Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research & Nanjing Medical University Affiliated Cancer Hospital, Nanjing 210009, ChinaDepartment of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, ChinaDepartment of Urologic Surgery, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital & Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research & Nanjing Medical University Affiliated Cancer Hospital, Nanjing 210009, ChinaDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, ChinaDepartment of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, ChinaDepartment of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, ChinaFirst Clinical Medical College of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, ChinaDepartment of Urology, Zhongda Hospital Affiliated to Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, ChinaDepartment of Urology, Zhongda Hospital Affiliated to Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, ChinaDepartment of Oncology, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital & Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research & Nanjing Medical University Affiliated Cancer Hospital, Nanjing 210009, ChinaObjective: To compare the outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and standard Care (SC) after radical cystectomy. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web ofScience, Medline and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies, and the last update was up to till October 2017 according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA). Twenty studies were suitable for inclusion criteria. Risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the effects of ERAS or SC calculated. Relevant outcomes were compared. We used contour-enhanced funnel plots and Harbord modificationof the Egger test to assess the publication bias. Results: We observed a lower overall complication rate (RR:0.86, 95% CI: 0.79-0.93, P = 0.502, I 2 = 0%), a shorter LOS (SMD: -1.02, 95% CI: -1.52 to -0.53, P = 0.000, I 2 =96.7%), and a faster recovery of bowel function (SMD: -1.13, 95% CI: -1.73 to-0.53, P = 0.000, I 2 = 95.1%) in the ERAS group after cystectomy. There was no differencesin the 90-d readmission rates (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.82-1.21, P = 0.238, I 2 = 26.2%) and 30-dreadmission rate inthe ERAS group (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.52-1.16, P = 0.075, I 2= 45.7%). Moreover, no significant differences were found regardingEBL (SMD:-0.11, 95% CI: -0.39-0.17, P = 0.462, I 2 = 0%), number of lymph nodes removed rate (SMD: 0.06, 95% CI: -0.18-0.30, P = 0.232, I 2 = 31.5%) and transfusion rate (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74-1.07, P = 0.958, I 2 = 0%). Conclusions: ERAS protocols might reduce LOS, time-to-bowel function, and rateof overall complications after cystectomy.http://dx.doi.org/10.11910/2227-6394.2018.06.01.05ERASRadical cystectomyCollaborative careFast trackClinical pathways
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Hong CHENG
Shuhui SI
Yu-xiao ZHENG
Jian-zhong ZHANG
Feng QI
Dong-liang CAO
Chuan-jie ZHANG
Gui-ya JIANG
Si SUN
Xin-wei WANG
spellingShingle Hong CHENG
Shuhui SI
Yu-xiao ZHENG
Jian-zhong ZHANG
Feng QI
Dong-liang CAO
Chuan-jie ZHANG
Gui-ya JIANG
Si SUN
Xin-wei WANG
Enhanced Recovery Pathways versus Standard Care after Cystectomy: A Meta-analysis and Systemtic Review
Journal of International Translational Medicine
ERAS
Radical cystectomy
Collaborative care
Fast track
Clinical pathways
author_facet Hong CHENG
Shuhui SI
Yu-xiao ZHENG
Jian-zhong ZHANG
Feng QI
Dong-liang CAO
Chuan-jie ZHANG
Gui-ya JIANG
Si SUN
Xin-wei WANG
author_sort Hong CHENG
title Enhanced Recovery Pathways versus Standard Care after Cystectomy: A Meta-analysis and Systemtic Review
title_short Enhanced Recovery Pathways versus Standard Care after Cystectomy: A Meta-analysis and Systemtic Review
title_full Enhanced Recovery Pathways versus Standard Care after Cystectomy: A Meta-analysis and Systemtic Review
title_fullStr Enhanced Recovery Pathways versus Standard Care after Cystectomy: A Meta-analysis and Systemtic Review
title_full_unstemmed Enhanced Recovery Pathways versus Standard Care after Cystectomy: A Meta-analysis and Systemtic Review
title_sort enhanced recovery pathways versus standard care after cystectomy: a meta-analysis and systemtic review
publisher Third Party Medicine International Publishing Group Co. Limited
series Journal of International Translational Medicine
issn 2227-6394
publishDate 2018-04-01
description Objective: To compare the outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and standard Care (SC) after radical cystectomy. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web ofScience, Medline and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies, and the last update was up to till October 2017 according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA). Twenty studies were suitable for inclusion criteria. Risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the effects of ERAS or SC calculated. Relevant outcomes were compared. We used contour-enhanced funnel plots and Harbord modificationof the Egger test to assess the publication bias. Results: We observed a lower overall complication rate (RR:0.86, 95% CI: 0.79-0.93, P = 0.502, I 2 = 0%), a shorter LOS (SMD: -1.02, 95% CI: -1.52 to -0.53, P = 0.000, I 2 =96.7%), and a faster recovery of bowel function (SMD: -1.13, 95% CI: -1.73 to-0.53, P = 0.000, I 2 = 95.1%) in the ERAS group after cystectomy. There was no differencesin the 90-d readmission rates (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.82-1.21, P = 0.238, I 2 = 26.2%) and 30-dreadmission rate inthe ERAS group (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.52-1.16, P = 0.075, I 2= 45.7%). Moreover, no significant differences were found regardingEBL (SMD:-0.11, 95% CI: -0.39-0.17, P = 0.462, I 2 = 0%), number of lymph nodes removed rate (SMD: 0.06, 95% CI: -0.18-0.30, P = 0.232, I 2 = 31.5%) and transfusion rate (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74-1.07, P = 0.958, I 2 = 0%). Conclusions: ERAS protocols might reduce LOS, time-to-bowel function, and rateof overall complications after cystectomy.
topic ERAS
Radical cystectomy
Collaborative care
Fast track
Clinical pathways
url http://dx.doi.org/10.11910/2227-6394.2018.06.01.05
work_keys_str_mv AT hongcheng enhancedrecoverypathwaysversusstandardcareaftercystectomyametaanalysisandsystemticreview
AT shuhuisi enhancedrecoverypathwaysversusstandardcareaftercystectomyametaanalysisandsystemticreview
AT yuxiaozheng enhancedrecoverypathwaysversusstandardcareaftercystectomyametaanalysisandsystemticreview
AT jianzhongzhang enhancedrecoverypathwaysversusstandardcareaftercystectomyametaanalysisandsystemticreview
AT fengqi enhancedrecoverypathwaysversusstandardcareaftercystectomyametaanalysisandsystemticreview
AT dongliangcao enhancedrecoverypathwaysversusstandardcareaftercystectomyametaanalysisandsystemticreview
AT chuanjiezhang enhancedrecoverypathwaysversusstandardcareaftercystectomyametaanalysisandsystemticreview
AT guiyajiang enhancedrecoverypathwaysversusstandardcareaftercystectomyametaanalysisandsystemticreview
AT sisun enhancedrecoverypathwaysversusstandardcareaftercystectomyametaanalysisandsystemticreview
AT xinweiwang enhancedrecoverypathwaysversusstandardcareaftercystectomyametaanalysisandsystemticreview
_version_ 1725616797534650368