Colorectal surgery is associated with considerable morbidity and prolonged length of stay (LOS). Recognizing the need for improvement, we implemented an enhanced recovery (ER) protocol for all patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery at an academic institution. A multidisciplinary team implemented an ER protocol based on: preoperative counseling with active patient participation, carbohydrate loading, multimodal analgesia with avoidance of intravenous opioids, intraoperative goal-directed fluid resuscitation, immediate postoperative feeding, and ambulation. Discharge requirements remained identical throughout. A before and after study design was undertaken comparing patients before (August 2012 to February 2013) and after implementation of an ER protocol (August 2013 to February 2014). Risk stratification was performed using the NSQIP risk calculator to calculate the predicted LOS for each patient based on 23 variables. One hundred and nine consecutive patients underwent surgery within the ER protocol compared with 98 consecutive historical controls (conventional). The risk-adjusted predicted LOS was similar for each group at 5.1 and 5.2 days. Substantial reductions were seen in LOS, morphine equivalents, intravenous fluids, return of bowel function, and overall complications with the ER group. There was a $7,129/patient reduction in direct cost, corresponding to a cost savings of $777,061 in the ER group. Patient satisfaction as measured by Press Ganey improved considerably during the study period. Implementation of an ER protocol led to improved patient satisfaction and substantial reduction in LOS, complication rates, and costs for patients undergoing both open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery. These data demonstrate that small investments in the perioperative environment can lead to large returns.

OBJECTIVE: To examine implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for women undergoing major gynecologic surgery at an academic institution and compare surgical outcomes before and after implementation. METHODS: Two ERAS protocols were developed: a full pathway using regional anesthesia for open procedures and a light pathway without regional anesthesia for vaginal and minimally invasive procedures. Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways included extensive preoperative counseling, carbohydrate loading and oral fluids before surgery, multimodal analgesia with avoidance of intravenous opioids, intraoperative goal-directed fluid resuscitation, and immediate postoperative feeding and ambulation. A before-and-after study design was used to compare clinical outcomes, costs, and patient satisfaction. Complications and risk-adjusted length of stay were drawn from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. RESULTS: On the ERAS full protocol, 136 patients were compared with 211 historical controls and the median length of stay was reduced (2.0 compared with 3.0 days; P=.007) despite an increase in National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-predicted length of stay (2.5 compared with 2.0 days; P=.009). Reductions were seen in median intraoperative morphine equivalents (0.3 compared with 12.7 mg; P<.001), intraoperative (285 compared with 1,250 mL; P<.001) and total intravenous fluids (−917.5 compared with 1,410 mL; P<.001), immediate postoperative pain scores (3.7 compared with 5.0; P<.001), and total complications (21.3% compared with 40.2%; P=.004). On the ERAS light protocol, 249 patients were compared with 324 historical controls and demonstrated decreased intraoperative and postoperative morphine equivalents (0.0 compared with 13.0 mg; P<.001 and 15.0 compared with 23.6 mg; P<.001) and decreased intraoperative and overall net intravenous fluids (P<.001). Patient satisfaction scores showed a marked and significant improvement on focus questions regarding pain control, nurses keeping patients informed, and staff teamwork; 30-day total hospital costs were significantly decreased in both ERAS groups. CONCLUSION: Implementation of ERAS protocols in gynecologic surgery was associated with a substantial decrease in intravenous fluids and morphine administration coupled with reduction in length of stay for open procedures combined with improved patient satisfaction and decreased hospital costs.

An increasing number of minimally or noninvasive devices are available to measure cardiac output in the critical care setting. This article reviews the underlying physical principles of these devices in addition to examining both animal and human comparative studies in an effort to allow clinicians to make informed decisions when selecting a device to measure cardiac output. Peer-reviewed manuscripts indexed in PubMed. A systematic search of the PubMed database for articles describing the use of cardiac output monitors yielded 1,526 sources that were included in the analysis. From all published cardiac output monitoring studies reviewed, the animal model, number of independent measurements, and correlation between techniques was extracted. Comparative studies in animals and humans between devices designed for measurement of cardiac output and experimental reference standards indicate thermodilution and Doppler-based techniques to have acceptable accuracy across a wide range of hemodynamic conditions, with bioimpedance techniques being less accurate. Thermodilution devices are marginally more accurate than Doppler-based devices but suffer from slower response time, increased invasiveness, and require stable core temperatures, good operator technique, and a competent tricuspid valve. Doppler-based techniques are less invasive and offer beat-to-beat measurements and excellent trending ability, but are dependent on accurate beam alignment and knowledge of aortic cross-sectional area. Studies of newer devices, such as pulse contour analysis, partial rebreathing, and pulse wave velocity, are far less in number and are primarily based on comparisons with thermodilution-based cardiac output measurements. Studies show widely ranging results. Thermodilution is relatively accurate for cardiac output measurements in both animals and humans when compared to experimental reference standards. Doppler-based techniques appear to have similar accuracy as thermodilution pulmonary artery catheters. Bioimpedance, pulse contour, partial rebreathing, and pulse wave velocity-based devices have not been studied as rigorously; however, the majority of studies included in this analysis point towards decreased accuracy.

Periodic, quantitative measurement of blood pressure (BP) in humans, predating the era of evidence-based medicine by over a century, is a component of the American Society of Anesthesiologists standards for basic anesthetic monitoring and is a staple of anesthetic management worldwide. Adherence to traditional BP parameters complicates the ability of investigators to determine whether particular BP ranges confer any clinical benefits. The BP waveform is a complex amalgamation of both antegrade and retrograde (reflected) pressure waves and is affected by vascular compliance, distance from the left ventricle, and the 3D structure of the vascular tree. Although oscillometry is the standard method of measuring BP semicontinuously in anesthetized patients and is the primary form of measurement in >80% of general anesthetics, major shortcomings of oscillometry are its poor performance at the extremes and its lack of information concerning BP waveform. Although arterial catheterization remains the gold standard for accurate BP measurement, 2 classes of devices have been developed to noninvasively measure the BP waveform continuously, including tonometric and volume clamp devices. Described in terms of a feedback loop, control of BP requires measurement, an algorithm (usually human), and an intervention. This narrative review article discusses the details of BP measurement and the advantages and disadvantages of both noninvasive and invasive monitoring, as well as the principles and algorithms associated with each technique.

Phenylephrine is a direct-acting, predominantly α1 adrenergic receptor agonist used by anesthesiologists and intensivists to treat hypotension. A variety of physiologic studies suggest that α-agonists increase cardiac afterload, reduce venous compliance, and reduce renal bloodflow. The effects on gastrointestinal and cerebral perfusion are controversial. To better understand the effects of phenylephrine in a variety of clinical settings, we screened 463 articles on the basis of PubMed searches of “methoxamine,” a long-acting α agonist, and “phenylephrine” (limited to human, randomized studies published in English), as well as citations found therein. Relevant articles, as well as those discovered in the peer-review process, were incorporated into this review. Phenylephrine has been studied as an antihypotensive drug in patients with severe aortic stenosis, as a treatment for decompensated tetralogy of Fallot and hypoxemia during 1-lung ventilation, as well as for the treatment of septic shock, traumatic brain injury, vasospasm status–postsubarachnoid hemorrhage, and hypotension during cesarean delivery. In specific instances (critical aortic stenosis, tetralogy of Fallot, hypotension during cesarean delivery) in which the regional effects of phenylephrine (e.g., decreased heart rate, favorable alterations in Qp:Qs ratio, improved fetal oxygen supply:demand ratio) outweigh its global effects (e.g., decreased cardiac output), phenylephrine may be a rational pharmacologic choice. In pathophysiologic states in which no regional advantages are gained by using an α1 agonist, alternative vasopressors should be sought.