Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in the world. Surgery is the only curative option. However, postoperative complications occur in up to 50% of patients and are associated with higher morbidity and mortality rates, lower health related quality of life (HRQoL) and increased expenditure in health care. The number and severity of complications are closely related to preoperative functional capacity, nutritional state, psychological state, and smoking behavior. Traditional approaches have targeted the postoperative period for rehabilitation and lifestyle changes. However, recent evidence shows that the preoperative period might be the optimal moment for intervention. This study will determine the impact of multimodal prehabilitation on patients’ functional capacity and postoperative complications. This international multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial will include 714 patients undergoing colorectal surgery for cancer. Patients will be allocated to the intervention group, which will receive 4 weeks of prehabilitation (group 1, prehab), or the control group, which will receive no prehabilitation (group 2, no prehab). Both groups will receive perioperative care in accordance with the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines. The primary outcomes for measurement will be functional capacity (as assessed using the six-minute walk test (6MWT)) and postoperative status determined with the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Secondary outcomes will include HRQoL, length of hospital stay (LOS) and a cost-effectiveness analysis. Multimodal prehabilitation is expected to enhance patients’ functional capacity and to reduce postoperative complications. It may therefore result in increased survival and improved HRQoL. This is the first international multicenter study investigating multimodal prehabilitation for patients undergoing colorectal surgery for cancer. Trial Registry: NTR5947 – date of registration: 1 August 2016.

Introduction: Treatment for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) comprises cytoreductive surgery combined with chemotherapy. Multimodal prehabilitation programmes before surgery have demonstrated efficacy in postoperative outcomes in non-gynaecological surgeries. However, the viability and effects of these programmes on patients with AOC are unknown. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and postoperative impact of a multimodal prehabilitation programme in AOC patients undergoing surgery. Methods: This single-centre, before-and-after intervention pilot study included 34 patients in two cohorts: the prehabilitation cohort prospectively included 15 patients receiving supervised exercise, nutritional optimisation, and psychological preparation from December 2019 to January 2021; the control cohort included 19 consecutive patients between January 2018 and November 2019. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines were followed. Results: The overall adherence to the multimodal prehabilitation programme was 80%, with 86.7% adherence to exercise training, 100% adherence to nutritional optimisation, and 80% adherence to psychological preparation. The median hospital stay was shorter in the prehabilitation cohort (5 (IQR, 4–6) vs. 7 days (IQR, 5–9) in the control cohort, p = 0.04). Differences in postoperative complications using the comprehensive complication index (CCI) were not significant (CCI score: 9.3 (SD 12.12) in the prehabilitation cohort vs. 16.61 (SD 16.89) in the control cohort, p = 0.08). The median time to starting chemotherapy was shorter in the prehabilitation cohort (25 (IQR, 23–25) vs. 35 days (IQR, 28–45) in the control cohort, p = 0.03). Conclusions: A multimodal prehabilitation programme before cytoreductive surgery is feasible in AOC patients with no major adverse effects, and results in significantly shorter hospital stays and time to starting chemotherapy.

Prehabilitation has shown its potential for most intra-cavity surgery patients on enhancing preoperative functional capacity and postoperative outcomes. However, its large-scale implementation is limited by several constrictions, such as: i) unsolved practicalities of the service workflow, ii) challenges associated to change management in collaborative care; iii) insufficient access to prehabilitation; iv) relevant percentage of program drop-outs; v) need for program personalization; and, vi) economical sustainability. Transferability of prehabilitation programs from the hospital setting to the community would potentially provide a new scenario with greater accessibility, as well as offer an opportunity to effectively address the aforementioned issues and, thus, optimize healthcare value generation. A core aspect to take into account for an optimal management of prehabilitation programs is to use proper technological tools enabling: i) customizable and interoperable integrated care pathways facilitating personalization of the service and effective engagement among stakeholders; ii) remote monitoring (i.e. physical activity, physiological signs and patient-reported outcomes and experience measures) to support patient adherence to the program and empowerment for self-management; and, iii) use of health risk assessment supporting decision making for personalized service selection. The current manuscript details a proposal to bring digital innovation to community-based prehabilitation programs. Moreover, this approach has the potential to be adopted by programs supporting long-term management of cancer patients, chronic patients and prevention of multimorbidity in subjects at risk.

Importance: Prehabilitation has potential for improving surgical outcomes as shown in previous randomized controlled trials. However, a marked efficacy-effectiveness gap is limiting its scalability. Comprehensive analyses of deployment of the intervention in real-life scenarios are required. Objective: To assess health outcomes and cost of prehabilitation. Design: Prospective cohort study with a control group built using propensity score–matching techniques. Setting: Prehabilitation Unit in a tertiary-care university hospital. Participants: Candidates for major digestive, cardiac, thoracic, gynecologic, or urologic surgeries. Intervention: Prehabilitation program, including supervised exercise training, promotion of physical activity, nutritional optimization, and psychological support. Main Outcomes and Measures: The comprehensive complication index, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital costs per patient until 30 days after surgery. Patients were classified by the degree of program completion and level of surgical aggression for sensitivity analysis. Results: The analysis of the entire study group did not show differences in study outcomes between prehabilitation and control groups (n=328 each). The per-protocol analysis, including only patients completing the program (n=112, 34%), showed a reduction in mean hospital stay [9.9 (7.2) vs 12.8 (12.4) days; P=0.035]. Completers undergoing highly aggressive surgeries (n=60) additionally showed reduction in mean intensive care unit stay [2.3 (2.7) vs 3.8 (4.2) days; P=0.021] and generated mean cost savings per patient of €3092 (32% cost reduction) (P=0.007). Five priority areas for action to enhance service efficiencies were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: The study indicates a low rate of completion of the intervention and identifies priority areas for re-design of service delivery to enhance the effectiveness of prehabilitation.

(1) Background and aim: This study aimed to investigate the impact of prehabilitation on the postoperative outcomes of heart transplantation and its cost-effectiveness. (2) Methods: This single-center, ambispective cohort study included forty-six candidates for elective heart transplantation from 2017 to 2021 attending a multimodal prehabilitation program consisting of supervised exercise training, physical activity promotion, nutritional optimization, and psychological support. The postoperative course was compared to a control cohort consisting of patients transplanted from 2014 to 2017 and those contemporaneously not involved in prehabilitation. (3) Results: A significant improvement was observed in preoperative functional capacity (endurance time 281 vs. 728 s, p < 0.001) and quality-of-life (Minnesota score 58 vs. 47, p = 0.046) after the program. No exercise-related events were registered. The prehabilitation cohort showed a lower rate and severity of postoperative complications (comprehensive complication index 37 vs. 31, p = 0.033), lower mechanical ventilation time (37 vs. 20 h, p = 0.032), ICU stay (7 vs. 5 days, p = 0.01), total hospitalization stay (23 vs. 18 days, p = 0.008) and less need for transfer to nursing/rehabilitation facilities after hospital discharge (31% vs. 3%, p = 0.009). A cost-consequence analysis showed that prehabilitation did not increase the total surgical process costs. (4) Conclusions: Multimodal prehabilitation before heart transplantation has benefits on short-term postoperative outcomes potentially attributable to enhancement of physical status, without cost-increasing.

The efficacy-effectiveness gap constitutes a well-known limitation for adoption of digitally enabled integrated care services. The current report describes the co-creation process undertaken (2016–2021) to deploy a prehabilitation service at Hospital Clínic de Barcelona with the final aim of achieving sustainable adoption and facilitate site transferability. An implementation research approach with a population-based orientation, combining experience-based co-design and quality improvement methodologies, was applied. We undertook several design-thinking sessions (Oct-Nov 2017, June 2021 and December 2021) to generate and follow-up a work plan fostering service scalability. The implementation process was assessed using the Comprehensive Framework for Implementation Research, leading to the identification of key performance indicators. Personalization and modularity of the intervention according to patients’ surgical risk were identified as core traits to enhance patients’ adherence and value generation. A digitally enabled service workflow, with an adaptive and collaborative case management approach, should combine face-to-face and remotely supervised sessions with intelligent systems for patients’ and professionals’ decision support. The business model envisages operational costs financed by savings generated by the service. Evidence-based co-creation, combining appropriate methodologies and a structured evaluation framework, was key to address challenges associated with sustainable prehabilitation service adoption, scalability and transferability.