Background: The present interdisciplinary consensus review proposes clinical considerations and recommendations for anaesthetic practice in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery with an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) programme.Methods: Studies were selected with particular attention being paid to meta‐analyses, randomized controlled trials and large prospective cohort studies. For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway, available English‐language literature was examined and reviewed. The group reached a consensus recommendation after critical appraisal of the literature.Results: This consensus statement demonstrates that anaesthesiologists control several preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative ERAS elements. Further research is needed to verify the strength of these recommendations.Conclusions: Based on the evidence available for each element of perioperative care pathways, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS ^®) Society presents a comprehensive consensus review, clinical considerations and recommendations for anaesthesia care in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery within an ERAS programme. This unified protocol facilitates involvement of anaesthesiologists in the implementation of the ERAS programmes and allows for comparison between centres and it eventually might facilitate the design of multi‐institutional prospective and adequately powered randomized trials.

Background: The present article has been written to convey concepts of anaesthetic care within the context of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme, thus aligning the practice of anaesthesia with the care delivered by the surgical team before, during and after surgery.Methods: The physiological principles supporting the implementation of theERASprogrammes in patients undergoing major abdominal procedures are reviewed using an updated literature search and discussed by a multidisciplinary group composed of anaesthesiologists and surgeons with the aim to improve perioperative care.Results: The pathophysiology of some key perioperative elements disturbing the homoeostatic mechanisms such as insulin resistance, ileus and pain is here discussed.Conclusions: Evidence‐based strategies aimed at controlling the disruption of homoeostasis need to be evaluated in the context ofERASprogrammes. Anaesthesiologists could, therefore, play a crucial role in facilitating the recovery process.

The purpose of this update of the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) guidelines on the pre-operative evaluation of the adult undergoing noncardiac surgery is to present recommendations based on the available relevant clinical evidence. Well performed randomised studies on the topic are limited and therefore many recommendations rely to a large extent on expert opinion and may need to be adapted specifically to the healthcare systems of individual countries. This article aims to provide an overview of current knowledge on the subject with an assessment of the quality of the evidence in order to allow anaesthesiologists all over Europe to integrate – wherever possible – this knowledge into daily patient care. The Guidelines Committee of the ESA formed a task force comprising members of the previous task force, members of ESA scientific subcommittees and an open call for volunteers was made to all individual active members of the ESA and national societies. Electronic databases were searched from July 2010 (end of the literature search of the previous ESA guidelines on pre-operative evaluation) to May 2016 without language restrictions. A total of 34 066 abtracts were screened from which 2536 were included for further analysis. Relevant systematic reviews with meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional surveys were selected. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the level of evidence and to grade recommendations. The final draft guideline was posted on the ESA website for 4 weeks and the link was sent to all ESA members, individual or national (thus including most European national anaesthesia societies). Comments were collated and the guidelines amended as appropriate. When the final draft was complete, the Guidelines Committee and ESA Board ratified the guidelines.

Controversy exists regarding the optimal i.v. fluids for use with a goal-directed haemodynamic algorithm. In a double-blind pilot study, we randomly assigned 50 patients with primary ovarian cancer undergoing cytoreductive surgery to receive either balanced crystalloid or balanced starch (HES, 130/0.4, 6%) solutions up to the dose limit (50 ml kg⁻¹). Fluids were administered to optimize stroke volume measured by oesophageal Doppler within a goal-directed haemodynamic algorithm. Baseline subject characteristics were similar in both groups. The balanced HES solution maintained stroke volume (P=0.012) better with administration of less fluid. Subjects in the colloid group reached the dose limits of the study medication less frequently (92% vs 62%, P=0.036) and later (2:26 vs 3:33 h, P=0.006) and also required less transfusion of fresh-frozen plasma units (6.0 vs 3.5 units, P=0.035) compared with the crystalloid group. Intra- and postoperative urine output and perioperative plasma levels of creatinine and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin as renal injury marker were similar in both groups. No differences in the length of intensive care unit and hospital stay were found. Using a goal-directed haemodynamic algorithm to optimize stroke volume, a balanced HES solution is associated with better haemodynamic stability and reduced need for fresh-frozen plasma. There were no signs of renal impairment by colloid solutions when fluid administration is targeted to optimize cardiac preload.