• Vanni Agnoletti, Stefano Bonilauri, Lesley De Pietri, Demetrio Ferrara, Andrea Lanaia, Nicola Pipia, Matteo Seligardi, Emanuele Padovani, and Ruggero Massimo Corso.
• 1Division of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit, Department of Emergency, AUSL Romagna-Cesena, Cesena FC, Italy; 2General and Emergency Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera, IRCCS Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy; 3Division of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit, Department of Cardiology, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Critical Care Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera, IRCCS Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy; 4Operations Manager Istituto Clinico Humanitas Mater Domini,Varese, Italy; 5Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera, IRCCS, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy; 6Business Administration/University of Bologna, Department of Management, Bologna, Italy; 7Department of Surgery, Anesthesia and Intensive Care Section, G.B. Morgagni Hospital, AUSL Romagna-Forlì, Forlì FC, Italy.
• Acta Clin Croat. 2020 Jun 1; 59 (2): 227-232.

AbstractEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs are perioperative evidence-based interventions that have the purpose of making the perioperative pathway more efficient in safeguarding patient safety and quality of care. Recently, several ERAS components have been introduced in the setting of bariatric surgery (Enhanced Recovery After Bariatric Surgery, ERABS). The aim of the present study was to evaluate clinical efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the implementation of an ERABS program. It was a retrospective case-control study comparing a group of adult obese (body mass index >40) patients treated according to the ERABS protocol (2014-2015) with a historical control group that received standard care (2013-2014) in the General and Emergency Surgery Department, Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova Hospital, Reggio Emilia, Italy. Data on the occurrence of complications, mortality, re-admissions and re-operations were extracted retrospectively from medical case notes and emergency patient admission lists. Length of hospital stay was significantly different between the two cohort patients. In the control group, the mean length of stay was 12.6±10.9 days, whereas in the ERABS cohort it was 7.1±2.9 days (p=0.02). During hospital stay, seven patients in the control group developed surgical complications, including one patient with major complications, whereas in the ERABS group three patients developed minor complications. Economic analysis revealed a different cost distribution between the two groups. On the whole, there were significant savings for almost all the variables taken into consideration, mainly driven by exclusion of using intensive care unit, which is by far more expensive than the average cost of post-anesthesia care unit. Our study confirmed the implementation of an ERABS protocol to have shortened hospital stay and was cost-saving while safeguarding patient safety.

18 keywords...

hide…