A pilot study of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in aortic surgery

We tested the outcomes with the use of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in patients who had undergone open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (enhanced recovery after vascular surgery [ERAVS] protocol). We compared them with those obtained for patients who had undergone endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and for a historical control group of standard open AAA repair in a prospective, single-center pilot study.

From June to December 2019, all patients who were candidates for open AAA repair at our department were enrolled in the ERAVS protocol (ERAVS group; 17 patients). During the same period, 18 patients had undergone EVAR (EVAR group). The historical control group of standard open AAA repair included 32 patients who had undergone surgery during the 6 months before the study period (standard protocol open repair [OR] group). The three groups were compared on an "on-treatment" basis (prospectively for the ERAVS and EVAR groups and retrospectively for the OR group) in terms of the time to discharge (TTD), interval to the resumption of oral intake, time to ambulation, resumption of bowel function, and postoperative pain. Comparisons were performed using the one-way analysis of variance test, Tukey post hoc test for quantitative data, and χ² test for qualitative data.

The ERAVS protocol was successfully applied for all but one patient (feasibility rate, 94%). The mean TTD was 5.1 days in the ERAVS group, 3.5 days in the EVAR group, and 8.4 days in the OR group [P < .001; F(2,64) = 11.3], with a significant difference between the OR and ERAVS and EVAR groups (P = .1 and P < .001, respectively) but not between the EVAR and ERAVS groups (P = .4). The ERAVS group had intervals to the resumption of oral intake and ambulation similar to those of the EVAR group. In contrast, these were significantly longer for the OR group. The mean time to the resumption of bowel function was similar in the ERAVS and OR groups (2.6 and 2.9 days, respectively; P = .6). In the ERAVS group, the mean value of the maximum referred pain using the numeric rating scale was 3.75 (range, 1-6). The corresponding values for the EVAR and OR groups were 2.6 (range, 0-6) and 4.9 [range, 1-8; F(2,62) = 15.4; P < .001]. The post hoc test showed a significant difference between the OR group and the ERAVS and EVAR group (P = .01 and P < .001, respectively) but not between the ERAVS and EVAR groups (P = .07).

In our early experience, the ERAVS protocol appeared to be effective in reducing the TTD and improving the postoperative outcomes compared with the OR group, without significant differences compared with the EVAR group.