Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Effect of Pharmacoprophylaxis on Postoperative Outcomes in Adult Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Multi-Center Retrospective Cohort Study within an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Framework

This version is not peer-reviewed.

William Olin Blair,
Mary Allison Ellis
,Maria Fada,Austin Allen Wiggins,
Rachel Stratmen Wolfe,Gourang P Patel,Kara K Brockhaus,Molly Droege,
Laura M Ebbitt,Brian Kramer,Eric Likar,
Kerilyn Petrucci,Sapna Shah,Jerusha Taylor,Paula Bignham,Samuel Krabacher,Jin Hyung Moon,Monica Rogoz,Edson Jdean-Jacques,Robdert K Cleary,Ransome Eke,Rachelle Findley,
Richard H Parrish II  *
,Enhanced Recovery Comparative Pharmacotherapy Collaborative

Submitted:

20 October 2023

Posted:

23 October 2023

You are already at the latest version

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Abstract
Background: Application of enhanced recovery after surgery principles decrease postoperative complications (POCs), length of stay (LOS), and readmissions. Pharmacoprophylaxis decreases morbidity, but the effect of specific regimens on clinical outcomes is unclear. Methods and Materials: Records of 476 randomly selected adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgeries (ECRS) at 10 US hospitals were abstracted. Primary outcomes were surgical site infection (SSI), venous thromboembolism (VTE), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), pain, and ileus rates. Secondary outcomes included LOS and 7- and 30-day readmission rates. Results: POC rates were SSI (3.4%), VTE (1.5%), PONV (47.9%), pain (58.1%), and ileus (16.1%). Cefazolin 2g/metronidazole 500mg and ertapenem 1g were associated with the shortest LOS; cefotetan 2g and cefoxitin 2g with the longest LOS. No SSI occurred with ertapenem and cefotetan. More Caucasians than Blacks received oral antibiotics before intravenous antibiotics without impact. Enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously daily was the most common inpatient and discharge VTE prophylaxis. All in-hospital VTEs occurred with unfractionated heparin. Most received rescue rather than around the clock antiemetics. Scopolamine patch, spinal opioids, and IV lidocaine continuous infusion were associated with lower PONV. Transversus abdominis plane block with long-acting local anesthetics, celecoxib, non-anesthetic ketamine bolus, ketorolac IV, lidocaine IV, and pregabalin were associated with lower in-hospital pain severity rate. Gabapentinoids and alvimopan were associated with lower ileus rate. Acetaminophen, alvimopan, famotidine, and lidocaine patch were associated with shorter LOS. Conclusions: Significant differences in pharmacotherapy regimens that may improve primary and secondary outcomes in ECRS were identified. Future research should identify latent pharmacotherapy variables that impact patient outcomes.
Keywords: 
Subject: 
Medicine and Pharmacology  -   Pharmacy

supplementary.docx (614.90KB )

Presented as abstracts of preliminary data at the ERAS-USA 5th annual meeting, Washington, DC, November 10-12, 2022, and American College of Clinical Pharmacy virtual spring meeting, May 23-25, 2023.

1. Introduction

The adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) core items have been shown to decrease serious postoperative complications (POCs) and reduce postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), readmission rates, and overall hospital costs [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Protocolized prophylaxis of common POCs with pharmacotherapy, such as surgical site infection (SSI) with appropriate antibiotics [10,11,12,13], venous thromboembolism (VTE) with anticoagulants [14,15,16,17], and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) using multimodal approaches [18,19,20,21,22,23], among others, coupled with preoperative risk assessments [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34], has become more prevalent in surgical practice. Still, elucidation of pharmacotherapy regimens associated with lower POCs, LOS, and readmission remains somewhat nascent [5,13,16,35,36]. Moreover, estimates of the impact of pharmacotherapy prophylaxis on attainment of positive patient outcomes in hospitals with “homegrown” enhanced recovery audit and feedback systems are publicly non-existent unless reported on public-facing hospital webpages which, according to some reports, may be misleading information [37,38].
In our study, the effect of pharmacotherapy prophylaxis to prevent SSI, VTE, PONV, pain (POP), and ileus (POI) (primary outcomes) as well as to reduce LOS and readmission rates (secondary outcomes) is presented in five parts. Part 1 presents the multi-center methodology and descriptive statistics for pharmacotherapy and procedural-related variables. Antibiotics and SSI prophylaxis are found in Part 2. In Part 3, anticoagulants and VTE prophylaxis are highlighted. Part 4 deals with antiemetics and PONV prevention. Finally, Part 5 describes analgesics and adjunctive agents, and POP and POI impact. Opportunities for improvement of these primary and secondary outcomes using pharmacoprophylaxis are identified and highlighted in the discussion.

2. Materials and Methods

Clinical pharmacists, pharmacy residents, and medical and pharmacy students on clinical rotations from 10 hospitals in the United States participated in the study. The clinical pharmacists were contacted and recruited (by Dr. Parrish) through electronic listservs of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Perioperative Care and Critical Care Practice and Research Networks. Patients at each site were identified through a search of ICD-10 and CPT codes in electronic health records (EHR) pertaining to colorectal diagnoses and procedures [Supplementary Materials Figure S1]. Each hospital underwent a study initiation training, and each data collector was trained in chart abstraction and entry procedures in REDCap® that included a total of 144 pharmacotherapy-related variables per patient [39].
The present study derives from a research strategy for ERAS®-related pharmacotherapy prophylaxis introduced in a previous report [40] and trialed in a single-center randomized cohort study for elective colorectal and gynecological oncology patients [5]. The methodology and data dictionary of the present study were described previously and modified through several iterations by all co-investigators [41]. A simple randomization algorithm (http://www.random.org) was used at each site to select up to 50 patients ≥18 years of age admitted as an inpatient for elective colorectal surgery between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2021 for inclusion in the analysis. Caprini score was used for estimating VTE risk [17], Apfel scoring for PONV risk [18], and a calculator on Global RPh was used to estimate oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME) [42]. Each of these calculators were embedded in a REDCap® data collection tool [Supplementary Materials Figure S2]. To detect a significant difference for the least common POC, venous thromboembolism (VTE), with a 0.2 β and 80% power and an α of < 0.05, a total sample size of at least 565 complete cases was needed based on an estimated 4% and 1.9% VTE incidence in the population and cohort, respectively. However, an interim analysis of VTE rate showed that the actual VTE rate in 476 cases was 1.5%. Therefore, a sample size of 378 cases would be needed for statistical significance, and data collection was stopped.
Descriptive statistics were used for frequency tabulations, χ2 for cross tabulations of categorical variables, and linear and logistic regression were employed to measure associations for colorectal surgeries between dependent (medication-related) and independent (outcome-related) variables. Categorical variables were presented as N (%), and continuous variables were presented as mean (±S.D.) or median (IQR). Univariate analyses were conducted to evaluate for differences in baseline patient characteristics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes between patients who received antibiotics, anti-coagulants, and antiemetics prior to and after surgery. Regression analysis using a PICO-styled research question series was used to determine the effect of various medication regimens on composite primary and secondary outcomes. Outcomes included the frequency and severity of POCs as assessed using Clavien-Dindo classification [43], LOS in days, and 7- and 30-day readmission. All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata Statistical Software: Release 17, 2021. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC., and data have been reported in line with the STROCSS criteria (Appendix A) [44]. The Institutional Review Boards of all hospitals reviewed and exempted the study from further review (Mercer University IRB #H2201008; all other site-related IRB determination letters and data use agreements are on file). This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and is registered at Research Registry (unique identifying number researchregistry7683) at https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/registrationdetails/62192040a30665001e1d8cef/.

3. Results

3.1. Part 1 - Descriptive statistics

The data for 476 adult patients that underwent an elective colorectal procedure at 10 sites were included in the analysis. These hospitals comprised a total of 6,716 beds (R = 210 - 1,274 beds / hospital) and performed a total of 4,522 (452 ± 208 mean procedures / hospital) colorectal surgeries during calendar year 2021. Most of these participating hospitals collect colorectal surgery data internally through either service-based or institutional review processes (n=8), and seven provided their perioperative care teams with feedback on program performance. In addition to colorectal procedures at participating hospitals, other common specialty procedures included orthopedics and gynecology (90%), urological (70%), and obstetrics and spine (60%).
Table 1 shows patient baseline characteristics. Slightly more of the patients were female and most were white. The average weight was 82 ± 21 kg and the mean eGFR was 80.9 ± 24.91 mL/min/1.73m2. Of the patients that regularly consumed alcoholic beverages, most had between 1 and 7 drinks per week. Almost one-half had a drug allergy with most of those having a non-penicillin / non-cephalosporin allergy. A cancer diagnosis was found in about half of patients, and over two-thirds did not receive neoadjuvant radiation or chemotherapy. The median LOS was 4 days (IQR = 3 – 6.25 days); the mean LOS was 5.6 ± 4.9 days. Readmission rates within 7- and 30-days were 6% and 7.8%, respectively. POCs, LOS, readmission and other historical and drug-related variables were similar for baseline characteristics.
Table 2 describes the procedure-related variables. The two most common colorectal resection sites were single site or combinations of sigmoid colon and rectum. Most patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure, followed by open and robotic laparoscopy. The most frequently employed anesthetic combinations were general inhalation, propofol, and IV short-acting opioid such as fentanyl or remifentanil. The typical blood loss volume was 119 mL, and over 60% of patients had an ASA score of III. Almost all patients received lactated Ringer’s solution, and over 25% received albumin. Peripheral intravenous fluids were generally stopped by POD 3 in almost three-quarters of cases. Within the preceding 6 months, 13.4% of patients received iron therapy with oral iron (sulfate and gluconate) as the predominant medication. Insulin was administered in about one-fourth of cases, and most of those received it on a sliding scale.
A breakdown of surgical technique by anatomical location, LOS, and readmission rates is found in Supplementary Materials Tables S1 and S2. Sigmoid colon was the most common anatomical location, followed by rectum, ascending colon and descending colon. Appendix and cecum were the least common locations. The most common surgical techniques were laparoscopic and open, with non-robotic techniques predominating over robotic 4 to 1. Laparoscopic procedures had the shortest LOS with manual procedure having the highest 7-day readmission rate and robotic having the highest 30-day readmission rate as compared to open procedures. Open manual procedures had the lowest 7-day and similar 30-day readmission rates compared to laparoscopic. Converted to open from laparoscopic had the highest 30-day readmission rate and a comparable LOS to open manual. Sigmoid colon was the most common procedure of all procedures, and rectum was the most frequent anatomical location for laparoscopic procedures.
The relationships of anatomical location and LOS and readmission rates is presented in Supplementary Materials Table S3. Procedures including the appendix had the longest LOS and the lowest 7- and 30-day readmission rates of all procedures and combinations. Procedures including the cecum had the shortest LOS. Procedures including the transverse colon and small intestine had the highest 7-day readmission rates, and those including the descending colon and sigmoid had the highest 30-day readmission rates. For LOS, procedures involving the transverse, small intestine, and rectum had significant variability. There was no difference in 7- and 30-day readmission for any colonic location.

3.2. Part 2 – Antibiotics and SSI

Table 3 reports prophylactic antibiotic utilization. SSI during hospitalization was diagnosed in 3.4% of patients. In-hospital infection was diagnosed in 7.4% of patients as well as in 8.5% patients at a recent post-discharge visit. Intravenous antibiotic (IVA) prophylaxis was administered in almost all cases, and cefazolin 2 g / metronidazole 500 mg (C/M) was the most common IVA prophylaxis regimen. Cefoxitin 2 g was the second-most used IVA followed by ertapenem 1 g. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) was prescribed in over two-thirds with laxatives and oral antibiotic bowel prep (OABP) prescribed in most cases (a three-dose regimen of each metronidazole 500 mg and neomycin 1 g). Almost 60% received both OABP and IVA to prevent SSI. More Caucasians than blacks/African Americans received both OABP/IVA. OABP/IVA was almost twice as likely in robotic surgeries without reductions in SSI, LOS, and readmission. One-fourth of cases received postoperative IVA, and the majority that received IVA postoperatively had a duration of greater than 4 days. The majority received their first prophylactic dose within 30 minutes of surgical incision. Overall, over one-third received an intraoperative re-dose. Over three-quarters of cases received chlorhexidine skin preparation preoperatively.
Table 4 shows the most frequently used intravenous antibiotics ranked by primary and secondary outcomes. LOS for C/M and ertapenem was significantly different than that for the second generation cephalosporins, cefotetan and cefoxitin. C/M was the most frequently used antibiotic followed by ertapenem and cefoxitin. C/M use was associated
with the shortest average LOS and 7-day readmission rate, but higher than average in-hospital infection rate and 30-day readmission rate. Ertapenem also was associated with the shortest average LOS and lower than average in-hospital infection rate, but higher than average post-discharge infection, and 7- and 30-day readmission rates. Of note, cefotetan use was associated with no in-hospital infections, with longer-than-average LOS and post-discharge infection rate. Combination ampicillin/cefoxitin (n=39) was associated with the lowest rates of in-hospital and post-discharge infection and 30-day readmission rates, but with higher than average 7-day readmission. Cefoxitin had a longer LOS compared to other antibiotics. Patients with a penicillin or cephalosporin allergy seemed to stay in hospital longer but had lower than average rates for primary and secondary outcomes.
Small intestine procedures including other colonic segments had an SSI rate that was over twice that of small intestine only procedures and almost 3 times the overall SSI average rate [Supplementary Materials Table S4]. Large intestine procedures had the lowest SSI rate which occurred at half the average SSI rate. C/M had an overall SSI rate of 12.9% for procedures involving the small intestinal. Cefotetan and ertapenem use had no SSIs for any colonic procedures. The SSI rate for large colonic procedures was significantly lower than that for those involving the small intestine (p = 0.00182).

3.3. Part 3 – anticoagulants and VTE

Anticoagulation regimens are found in Table 5. The incidence of any in-hospital VTE was 1.5%. Patients were VTE risk-stratified preoperatively in about one-half of cases, and the average Caprini score indicated high risk for post-surgical VTE. Preoperative VTE pharmacoprophylaxis was administered in over three-fourths of cases, and unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5,000 units SC was given in almost all cases within 6 hours of incision. Sequential compression devices were employed in three-fourths of cases. Anticoagulation was continued postoperatively in 96.0% and, only 26.9% were prescribed for at-home use. Enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily was the most common postoperative in-hospital and at-home anticoagulation regimen. Most patients who were prescribed at-home antithrombosis management received anticoagulation between 3 and 4 weeks. Of the 210 patients with a cancer diagnosis, only 45.7% (n = 96) received at-home VTE prophylaxis, and the most frequently prescribed anticoagulants were enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily and apixaban 2.5 mg PO twice daily. Several hospitals administered preoperative UFH after epidural placement then switched to enoxaparin postoperatively.
Table 6 shows a breakdown of pharmacologic anticoagulation by VTE, LOS, and bleeding/hematoma, and readmission rates. Enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily was the most frequently used anticoagulant regimen in-hospital and post-discharge and was associated with the shortest LOS and rates of VTE and 30-day readmission compared to UFH. All VTEs occurred while on a regimen including UFH 5,000 units SC q8h (one in sequential combination with enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily) for a combined VTE rate of 4.5% (7/156). Ketorolac IV use was not related to in-hospital or discharge bleeding or hematoma.
A comparison between enoxaparin and UFH is shown in Table 7. LOS and VTEs were significantly lower for enoxaparin use than for UFH use. There was no difference in in-hospital or discharge bleeding or hematoma and 7- or 30-day readmission.
Table 8 shows the at-home anticoagulation. Enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily was the most frequent anticoagulant with the lowest VTE rate and 30-day readmission (p=0.661). Apixaban 2.5 mg PO twice daily had the lowest complication and 7-day readmission rates. Patients on anticoagulation at home were more likely to be readmitted at 7 and 30 days. Bleeding rate at home while on an anticoagulant was 1.6%, and differences between the agents were significant (p=0.004). Discharge anticoagulation was associated with a slightly higher 7- (p=0.401) and 30-day (p=0.661) readmission.

3.4. Part 4 – antiemetics and PONV/PDNV

Table 9 outlines the prophylaxis and treatment of PONV. Risk assessment for PONV was used in 40.3% of cases, and the typical risk percentage using Apfel scoring was between 0 and 20%. However, PONV occurred in 47.9% of cases. Those that received antiemetics prior to induction usually were administered dexamethasone, ondansetron, and scopolamine patch with one dose within 60 minutes of surgical incision. Similarly, for those receiving antiemetics at extubation, the most common agents were ondansetron and dexamethasone. Many patients received only one postoperative antiemetic dose (n = 82; 27.5%), however, 45 patients (51.1`%) received greater than 7 doses during hospitalization. Over 70% were prescribed with an as needed frequency, and the most common rescue agent was IV ondansetron. PONV incidence was approximately 30% in each of the following phases of care: PACU, first 12 hours on the ward, and 12-24 hours on the ward/unit while 58.7% experienced PONV > 24 hours on the ward and/or unit.
In Table 10, antiemetics and their effects on PONV and post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) are presented. No combination of antiemetics was associated with a lower PONV rate. Scopolamine patch used in 13.4% of cases was associated with significantly lower PONV and PDNV rates. Use of spinal opioids and IV lidocaine were associated with lower PONV (p<0.05). PIVs containing saline and ondansetron were associated with lower PDNV (p<0.05). Higher postoperative incremental MME doses increased the likelihood of PONV by 23% (p<0.0001). Promethazine was associated with a higher 7-day readmission rate (p<0.01). Prochlorperazine was associated with significantly higher rates of PONV and PDNV (p<0.05).
Table 11 illustrates the variety of agents that may have a positive impact on pain, PONV and/or ileus incidence. The most common agents in this category were propofol, gabapentinoids, alvimopan, and sub-anesthetic ketamine bolus. Magnesium sulfate was used for pain management in 75 cases (15.8%). For neuromuscular blockade reversal, sugammadex (n = 268; 56.3%) was predominant over neostigmine (n = 152; 31.9%).

3.5. Part 5 – Analgesics and POP and POI

Multimodal pain management is described in Table 12. Oral acetaminophen, often contained in a combination product with hydrocodone or oxycodone, was the most common analgesic. Acetaminophen was usually given every 6 hours around the clock. IV acetaminophen was used in 17% of cases. A variety of non-specific COX and COX-2 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents were used, including ketorolac PO and IV, ibuprofen PO and IV, celecoxib, and naproxen. Gabapentin, ketamine IV, and ketorolac IV were the most common adjunctive agents administered for postoperative pain management. For opioid exposure, patients received median 42 (IQR: 25-88) oral MME pre- and intraoperatively and 67.5 (IQR: 22.5-180.75) MME postoperatively.
Table 13 reports the analgesics, anesthetics, and adjunctive agents associated with POP, POI, MME, LOS, and readmission. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block with long-acting local anesthetics, lidocaine IV, ketorolac IV, pregabalin, and celecoxib were associated with a lower pain rate. The most frequently used adjunctive agents with a potentially positive impact on ileus were gabapentinoids and alvimopan. Alvimopan was associated with lower ileus rate (p<0.001). Postoperative acetaminophen both PO and IV, alvimopan, and lidocaine patch were associated with shorter LOS, and no agents were associated with lower readmission.
Not surprisingly, POP was the most common in-hospital POC followed by PONV and delayed gastric emptying / ileus [Supplemental Materials Table S5]. Although two patients expired, most POCs were minor and required only appropriate pharmacotherapy or management, except for in-hospital ileus (combined Clavien-Dindo grades IIIa and IIIb - n = 12; 2.5%). Pain and infection were the most frequent at-home POCs [Supplementary Materials Table S6]. POCs occurring at home were reportedly more severe (15.1% v. 5.2%); over one-half of patients had a POC in the post-discharge phase.
Univariate and bivariate analyses related to the effect of pharmacoprophylaxis on patient postoperative outcomes (Appendix B) are summarized in Table 14 using a general PICO-styled methodology that has been utilized recently in the creation of various perioperative guidelines [45,46,47,48].

4. Discussion

4.1. Part 1 - Overview

To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive study to characterize the scope and measure the impact of pharmacotherapy prophylaxis regimens on common POCs, LOS, and readmission in a real-world multi-center cohort of adult ECRS patients. The impact of individual agents on primary and secondary outcomes, in many cases, was found to be mixed; some improved POC severity rates but adversely affected LOS and readmission rates and vice versa. Each major POC introduced in the preceding parts will be discussed in terms of the preferred agents used to prevent it with a comparison to existing literature similarities and unique findings.

4.2. Part 2 - Antibiotics and infection (SSI and other)

The SSI rate found in this study (3.4%) is in the range of the typical rate for ECRS, 2 to 10% in North America and Europe. Each hospital used a different protocolized antibiotic regimen to prevent SSI, and over 10% continued IVA greater than 4 doses, unlike ERAS® Society recommended postoperative duration [1]. This variation in the primary antibiotic used allows a comparison to identify potential regimens of choice associated with better outcomes. Of the SSIs that occurred, seven out of 16 patients received C/M, and six received cefoxitin alone. For ECRS, ASHP/SHEA/IDSA/SIS guidelines recommend the use of IV first-generation cephalosporin (cefazolin is the only parenteral first-generation available on North American markets) with metronidazole (C/M) or second-generation cephalosporins (cefotetan, cefoxitin, cefuroxime) as regimens of choice [35]. (Cefuroxime wasn’t used in our study.) However, these guidelines are over 10 years old and included ertapenem at the end of the colorectal recommendations. Moreover, a 2008 report suggested that ertapenem use led to lower SSI rate and shorter LOS with a reported cost savings of over USD $2,000 [49]. Another comparative study found that LOS from C/M use was not different than for cefotetan, but overall hospital costs were significantly higher [50]. Our study found that ertapenem and cefotetan provided better overall outcomes when compared to C/M or cefoxitin alone for ECRS [51,52]. Further, evidence suggests that ertapenem may be more effective than cefotetan [53]. Other more recent reports have shown similar results for ertapenem as ours, and this may be especially important in patients who are carriers of community- or hospital-acquired extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae [54,55]. Now that ertapenem is available generically, guidelines and protocols for SSI prevention may require a re-examination.
One interesting finding was the use of combination ampicillin with cefoxitin. With an average LOS, use of this combination led to only one SSI (total rate 2.6%, ileocolectomy rate 11.1%; 1/9 and colectomy rate 0%; 0/30), with low rates of 7- and 30-day readmission. While we did not collect information about the microorganisms causing SSI or infection, the combination may provide better coverage against Enterococcus spp. The combination has not been studied systematically for prophylaxis in any surgical setting, but ampicillin could be added to regimens lacking enterococcal coverage as recommended for infectious treatment [56].
The SSI rate for patients receiving IVA and OA with MBP versus IVA alone was not different, in contrast to a recent network meta-analysis including over 12,000 patients conducted by Koo and colleagues [57]. However, they did not report SSI rates, only reduced odds of SSI. Further, MBP is known to cause clinically significant fluid and electrolyte imbalances throughout the perioperative period and combined with OA can disrupt normal gut microbiome for months, even years [58]. In our study, MBP/IVA/OA did not lead to shortened LOS, reduced SSI, or lower readmission. To achieve reduced SSI rates, use of MBP/IVA/OA, perhaps limited to laparoscopic and robotic ECRS cases as currently recommended, must be weighed against the risk for fecal contamination during the anastomosis. Tissue handling and exposure are better during laparoscopic and robotic cases when patients are prepped, making the conduct of the operation easier and perhaps safer, even with the potential of generating multi-drug resistant organisms. Of note, the type of surgical technique (robotic versus open) and patients’ race were significant determinants of the choice of antibiotic prophylaxis. It is unclear why whites received OVA more often than blacks.
Preoperative anemia is believed to be associated with higher SSI rates and represents an area for research [59]. Oral iron therapy initiated within 6 months of surgery to raise hemoglobin levels was associated with higher in-hospital infection. Parenteral iron was used rarely. One explanation may be that patients may have initiated oral iron too close to the procedure to make a difference in preoperative hemoglobin levels. However, hemoglobin levels and iron monitoring parameters were not collected. No type of insulin therapy in-hospital was associated with lower SSI or post-discharge infection.

4.3. Part 3 - Anticoagulants and venous thromboembolism

VTE occurred in 1.5% of study participants which is similar to previous estimates of 1.1% to 2.5% in large databases of postoperative patients with colon cancer and inflammatory bowel disease [60]. Enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily was the predominant pharmacoprophylaxis regimen which aligns with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommendations [61]. However, the recent American Society of Hematology guideline does not differentiate between LMWH and UFH [62], and UFH was inferior to enoxaparin-containing regimens. Additionally, a sequential regimen of UFH followed by enoxaparin after epidural removal was associated with the longest LOS. This might also be because epidurals are more often used for open cases and not for laparoscopic/robot cases and open cases are associated with longer LOS [63]. A recent comparison of enoxaparin versus UFH in a large dataset of abdominal surgery patients similarly found that enoxaparin may be associated with fewer in-hospital VTEs with similar profiles for VTE and major bleeding at 90 days [64]. Enoxaparin was the only LMWH used in our study, and extrapolation to other LMWHs used in other parts of the world should be avoided. Possible explanations for the differences between enoxaparin and UFH may be the occurrence of missing doses because of UFH’s multiple daily dosing schedule or less predictable pharmacodynamic profile. Missing doses of UFH, however, were not collected.
Apixaban 2.5 mg PO twice daily was the second most used post-discharge anticoagulant and seemed to perform well regarding bleeding/hematoma and 7-day readmission, although oral DOAC regimens generally had higher 30-day readmission rates compared to enoxaparin due to bleeding or hematoma. A recent post-hoc analysis of the AVERT trial validated the safety and efficacy of apixaban in surgical patients with gastrointestinal cancers [65]. Currently indicated as prophylaxis in orthopedic procedures, it is very likely that DOAC regimens will be incorporated into future VTE prophylaxis for colorectal surgeries [66]. In general, ERAS® promotes earlier use of the enteral route for medication, fluid, and nutrient administration, and patients could be more compliant over an extended period with an oral versus injectable regimen. The post-discharge prophylaxis rate for cancer patients in our study (45.7%) was lower than a recent survey of colorectal surgeons who reported using extended VTE prophylaxis in their colorectal cancer patients (54%). Therefore, adherence to recommendations still appears to be an opportunity [67].

4.4. Part 4 - Antiemetics and postoperative / post-discharge nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were the second most common POC within our cohort. Rates were lower than those reported in a similar previous study; however, this difference may be accounted for by a higher proportion of females in the earlier study even though around the clock IV metoclopramide 48 hours was used postoperatively in gynecological oncology patients [5]. Centers with and without participation in an ERAS® protocol were included in the cohort. Use of a risk stratification system is likely less in centers without an ERAS® protocol, and PONV stratification was lower than expected (40.3% in our study) [19]. This may contribute to higher PONV severity rates [68]. A large percentage of patients in the study experienced PONV greater than 24 hours postoperatively. More prevention needs to be implemented immediately in the extended time window after surgery as late PONV has a profound effect on LOS [23]. Moreover, none of the centers presently used newer antiemetics such as amisulpride, and few used palonosetron or any dose form of aprepitant within their prophylaxis or treatment strategies. This lack of use may reflect concerns about cost as well as potentiation of QTc prolongation, even though these newer antiemetics have been shown to be safer and more effective than older agents, especially in combination [69].
Another concern raised by this study is that of PONV treatment modalities. With nearly half of the cohort’s patients experiencing nausea or vomiting at some time postoperatively, most patients were prescribed as needed antiemetic regimens, commonly IV ondansetron, after receiving IV dexamethasone as their preoperative prophylaxis. None reported using sub-hypnotic propofol doses for PONV which would be expected since this practice is primarily anesthesia-based in the PACU. This pattern is consistent with the frequent occurrence of PONV greater than 24 hours postoperatively that is seen in our results. It seems the current practice of many healthcare systems is not to continue postoperative antiemetics and provide rescue therapies.
The cohort of patients in this study did not receive a particularly diverse range of antiemetic drugs; however, a large majority received some form of PONV prophylaxis. Expectedly, patients receiving prophylaxis had lower PONV rates than those who did not. IV prochlorperazine was associated with the worst PONV and PDNV rates which may be explained because its use was primarily for rescue, not prophylaxis. Another older antiemetic, IV promethazine, was associated with a higher 7-day readmission rate, perhaps due to extravasation (occurring between 0.1 and 6% of administrations) [70], although this data was not collected. Use of scopolamine patch yielded lower PONV and PDNV severity rates as well as shorter LOS and seems to be an effective and noninvasive treatment option for surgical patients [20]. Patients in this study who required higher MME saw a marked increase in their likelihood of PONV. On the other hand, patients receiving continuous IV lidocaine infusion as part of a multi-modal pain strategy with or without limited postoperative MME had lower PONV severity rates [71,72,73]. Administration of either albumin and/or transfused packed red blood cells in hospital was associated with higher PDNV severity and may represent a new finding.

4.5. Part 5 - Analgesics and pain / ileus (delayed gastric emptying)

Multimodal pain management has been advocated since the initial development of ERAS® protocols; however, optimal combinations have not yet been determined. The combination of medications is novel to this study and represents a real-world implementation of ERAS® recommendations with the utilization of the Clavien-Dindo classification [43] that allows for a graded approach to pain severity assessment as opposed to a subjective scale.
Multiple medications utilized intraoperatively have been hypothesized to decrease postoperative pain severity and subsequently ileus severity. However, discussion is still ongoing. Our study supports Sarakatsianou and colleagues who found that continuous IV lidocaine infusion (n=54) decreases both in-hospital and post-discharge pain severity as well as LOS, however it was associated with higher post-discharge ileus severity rate, which it somewhat conflicting [74]. Continuous IV magnesium infusion (n=74) was also associated with higher in-hospital ileus severity, however, benefit to in-hospital or post-discharge pain severity was not apparent in our study unlike the results found by Ng and colleagues [75]. Injectable, non-intravenous medications such as TAP blocks were found to have lower in-hospital and post-discharge pain severity; however, spinal injections of local anesthetics with or without opioids were found to have higher in-hospital and post-discharge pain severity, although it is unclear why this would occur. Wound infiltration in our study was found to have lower severity rates of in-hospital ileus only for nonliposomal bupivacaine with epinephrine (n=27). Conversely, liposomal bupivacaine (n=17) was associated with higher rates of 30-day readmittance in our study which compliments the results found by Hussain et al that perineural liposomal bupivacaine was not superior to nonliposomal bupivacaine [76].
Analgesics utilized postoperatively to decrease pain incidence and severity were found to have interesting trends in our study. Regarding the efficacy of IV versus PO acetaminophen, 81 patients received acetaminophen IV during their admission and 446 received acetaminophen PO, both of which were associated with higher pain severity, but shorter LOS, which could be a function of the limited time frame that patients receive IV acetaminophen at most institutions [77,78]. Some patients (n=51) received both IV and PO acetaminophen during their stay which could confound meaningful analysis of differential pain impact based on route. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) produced variable outcomes in this study. Used around the clock, celecoxib and ketorolac IV were found to have lower pain severity rate, and ketorolac IV was the only one found to lower ileus severity rate. Ibuprofen IV was associated with higher MME use and higher in-hospital pain and ileus severity rates, most likely because it was used as needed in many cases, unlike celecoxib. While NSAIDs can decrease POP and POI, there is a potential risk of anastomotic leak which might lead the surgery team to avoid NSAIDs in particular patients. As adjunctive agents utilized for pain control, lidocaine patch and methocarbamol had a negative linear relationship, and may have been initiated after the occurrence of pain or ileus rather than prophylactically.
The utilization of a multimodal approach not only assisted with decreased pain, but also decreased ileus severity rate secondary to decreased utilization of opioids. Alvimopan use was associated with decreased MME, in-hospital pain severity, and in-hospital and post-discharge ileus severity. However, use of alvimopan likely resulted in a decrease in in-hospital pain severity secondary to reducing ileus symptoms rather than a direct effect on pain itself as has been hypothesized. Moreover, while alvimopan carries a black box warning for myocardial infarction, limiting its use to a 15-dose maximum, it may not be appropriate for all patients [79]. Interestingly, of the medications that decreased pain and ileus severity rates, pregabalin and TAP block were associated with a longer LOS. This LOS impact may be because these medications may have been utilized on patients who were perceived to have a higher POC risk and subsequently needed to stay admitted longer for additional monitoring.

4.6. Strengths and limitations

This study has several strengths. It is a real-world cohort study conducted at the same period at 10 hospitals from across the US. In addition, a randomized selection process occurred with each center’s coordinator using the same random number generator to identify ECRS cases, data collectors were trained in live and recorded educational sessions, and the number of cases needed to demonstrate statistical significance for the least common POC was calculated prior to and during the study. Hospital site coordinators were provided with the results from their sites to help address current practices to improve overall clinical outcomes and surgical quality metrics. Finally, procedures involving the small intestine and appendix, not stratified in most colorectal studies, were included in this study, and illustrated significant differences in SSI rates as compared to large colon only procedures.
On the other hand, the study has a few limitations due to its retrospective nature, which might preclude cause and effect assignment, however medication administration to prevent a POC preceded the occurrence of any POC reported. Selection bias cannot be ruled out as a potential cause of error. Data collection and chart abstraction may have had variations due to the recording of end point variables at different institutions within the medical record. It is possible that some emergent cases were included in case selection even though the definition of an elective case was the documentation of a preadmission visit. Another limitation of this multi-center study is that each center had their own protocols and therefore medications, doses, and durations may differ from site to site. However, this heterogeneity potentially allows for broader generalizability to a real-world, diverse ECRS patient population. It does however mean that some medications may have utility in ECRS patients, but the utilization was too low to be able to generate meaningful data. Additional limitations to pain control analysis include that, for patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) at one institution, MME calculations were estimated using milligram amounts of opioid dispensed to rather than administered by the patient and may represent an overestimation of MME utilization. No laboratory measurements nor the time-course of the administration of any medication (other than pre-, intra-, and postoperatively) were collected which might provide a more in-depth explanation of associations. Doses for medications other than for SSI and VTE were not collected and the frequency of administration for pain management pharmacotherapy was often not reported. This study included only a few non-pharmacologic modalities (postoperative ambulation, use of sequential compression devices, and aromatherapy for PONV), and it is known that other bundled perioperative interventions, such as shorter preoperative LOS, avoiding surgical drains, and early removal of urinary catheters, have a major impact on operative throughput and POC [80]. In addition, these results pertain only to adult elective colorectal cases, and extrapolation to other surgical procedures in adults or any periprocedure in children should be avoided. While our results presented are largely descriptive and associative from univariate and bivariate analyses, an additional manuscript employing a conceptual framework using R software to uncover latent interactional pharmacotherapy variables in a secondary analysis is underway [80].

5. Conclusions

Significant differences in pharmacoprophylaxis outcomes for common POCs, LOS, and readmission rates, among others, were identified. In adult ECRS, cefotetan or ertapenem may be better regimens for preventing in-hospital SSI, while ertapenem or C/M may lead to shorter LOS. The value of OA to prevent SSI was not demonstrated. Inpatient enoxaparin compared to UFH may reduce VTE rate with a similar LOS. A minority of patients had any documented PONV risk assessment, and a majority used as needed rather than around the clock strategies. Preoperative scopolamine patch continued postoperatively may lower PONV and PDNV severity and shorter LOS. Alvimopan may reduce ileus and shorten LOS. Anesthesia that includes TAP block, ketorolac IV, and pregabalin use may lead to reduced pain rate. Acetaminophen, alvimopan, famotidine, and lidocaine patch may shorten LOS.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at the website of this paper posted on Preprints.org. Figure S1: CPT and ICD-10 codes connection to colorectal surgery; Figure S2: REDCap data collection tool; Table S1: Surgical technique by anatomical location; Table S2: Surgical technique by LOS, 7- and 30-day readmission; Table S3: Anatomical location by LOS, 7- and 30-day re-admission; Table S4: Small versus large colon procedures, antibiotics, and SSI rate; Table S5: Common postoperative complications by severity – in-hospital; Table S6: Common postoperative complications by severity – post-discharge

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Richard Parrish (RP), Rachelle Findley (RF), Gourang Patel (GP), Brian Kramer (BK), Rachel Wolfe (RW); Data collection: RP, GP, BK, RW, William Blair (WB), Mary Ellis (ME), Maria Fada (MF), Austin Wiggins (AW), Kara Brockhaus (KB), Molly Droege (MD), Laura Ebbitt (LE), Eric Likar (EL), Kerilyn Petrucci (KP) Sapna Shah (SS), Jerusha Taylor (JT), Paula Bingham (PB), Samuel Krabacher (SK), Monica Rogoz (MR); Initial version; RP, RW, GP, WB, ME, MF, AW, MD, LE; Editing: all authors; Statistics: Edson Jean-Jacques, RP. Final version: all authors

Funding

The project described was supported by the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences through grant number UL1TR001998. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved as exempt from further review by the Mercer University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board (#H2201008 on January 24, 2022) as well as the IRBs of all participating institutions.

Data Availability Statement

Due to limitations in data sharing agreements, data generated in this study cannot be shared.

Acknowledgments

Carolyn Philpott, Pharm.D., BCCCP for data coordination and review, Jenna K. Lovely, Pharm.D., FCCP, BCPS for review of training video and materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Glossary of abbreviations

C/M cefazolin / metronidazole
ECRS elective colorectal surgery patients
EHR electronic health record
ERAS® Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
IV intravenous
IVA intravenous antibiotic
LA local anesthetic
LOS length of hospital stay
MBP mechanical bowel preparation
MME morphine milligram equivalent
OA oral antibiotic
OABP oral antibiotic with bowel preparation
PCA patient-controlled analgesia
PIV peripheral intravenous fluid
POC postoperative complication
PDNV post discharge nausea and vomiting
PO orally
PONV postoperative nausea and vomiting
SC subcutaneous
SSI surgical site infection
TAP transversus abdominis plane
UFH unfractionated heparin
VTE venous thromboembolism

Appendix A. STOCSS Checklist

The STROCSS 2021 Guideline
Item no. Item description Page
TITLE
1 Title
  • The word cohort or cross-sectional or case-control is included*
  • Temporal design of study is stated (e.g. retrospective or prospective)
  • The focus of the research study is mentioned (e.g. population, setting, disease, exposure/intervention, outcome etc.)
*STROCSS 2021 guidelines apply to cohort studies as well as other observational studies (e.g. cross-sectional, case-control etc.)		 1
ABSTRACT
2a Introduction – briefly describe:
  • Background
  • Scientific rationale for this study
  • Aims and objectives
 2
2b Methods - briefly describe:
  • Type of study design (e.g. cohort, case-control, cross-sectional etc.)
  • Other key elements of study design (e.g. retro-/prospective, single/multi-centred etc.)
  • Patient populations and/or groups, including control group, if applicable
  • Exposure/interventions (e.g. type, operators, recipients, timeframes etc.)
  • Outcome measures – state primary and secondary outcome(s)
 2
2c Results - briefly describe:
  • Summary data with qualitative descriptions and statistical relevance, where appropriate
 2
2d Conclusion - briefly describe:
  • Key conclusions
  • Implications for clinical practice
  • Need for and direction of future research
 2
INTRODUCTION
3 Introduction – comprehensively describe:
  • Relevant background and scientific rationale for study with reference to key literature
  • Research question and hypotheses, where appropriate
  • Aims and objectives
 2-3
METHODS
4a Registration
  • In accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki*, state the research registration number and where it was registered, with a hyperlink to the registry entry (this can be obtained from ResearchRegistry.com, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN etc.)
  • All retrospective studies should be registered before submission; it should be stated that the research was retrospectively registered

* “Every research study involving human subjects must be registered in a publicly accessible database before recruitment of the first subject” 		4
4b Ethical approval
  • Reason(s) why ethical approval was needed
  • Name of body giving ethical approval and approval number
  • Where ethical approval wasn’t necessary, reason(s) are provided
 4
4c Protocol
  • Give details of protocol (a priori or otherwise) including how to access it (e.g. web address, protocol registration number etc.)
  • If published in a journal, cite and provide full reference
 3
4d Patient and public involvement in research
  • Declare any patient and public involvement in research
  • State the stages of the research process where patients and the public were involved (e.g. patient recruitment, defining research outcomes, dissemination of results etc.) and describe the extent to which they were involved.
 N/A
5a Study design
  • State type of study design used (e.g. cohort, cross-sectional, case-control etc.)
  • Describe other key elements of study design (e.g. retro-/prospective, single/multi-centred etc.)
 3
5b Setting and timeframe of research – comprehensively describe:
  • Geographical location
  • Nature of institution (e.g. primary/secondary/tertiary care setting, district general hospital/teaching hospital, public/private, low-resource setting etc.)
  • Dates (e.g. recruitment, exposure, follow-up, data collection etc.)
 3
5c Study groups
  • Total number of participants
  • Number of groups
  • Detail exposure/intervention allocated to each group
  • Number of participants in each group
 3
5d Subgroup analysis – comprehensively describe:
  • Planned subgroup analyses
  • Methods used to examine subgroups and their interactions
 3
6a Participants – comprehensively describe:
  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria with clear definitions
  • Sources of recruitment (e.g. physician referral, study website, social media, posters etc.)
  • Length, frequency and methods of follow-up (e.g. mail, telephone etc.)
 3
6b Recruitment – comprehensively describe:
  • Methods of recruitment to each patient group (e.g. all at once, in batches, continuously till desired sample size is reached etc.)
  • Any monetary incentivisation of patients for recruitment and retention should be declared; clarify the nature of any incentives provided
  • Nature of informed consent (e.g. written, verbal etc.)
  • Period of recruitment
 3
6c Sample size – comprehensively describe:
  • Analysis to determine optimal sample size for study accounting for population/effect size
  • Power calculations, where appropriate
  • Margin of error calculation
 3-4
METHODS - INTERVENTION AND CONSIDERATIONS
7a Pre-intervention considerations – comprehensively describe:
  • Preoperative patient optimisation (e.g. weight loss, smoking cessation, glycaemic control etc.)
  • Pre-intervention treatment (e.g. medication review, bowel preparation, correcting hypothermia/-volemia/-tension, mitigating bleeding risk, ICU care etc.)
 N/A
7b Intervention – comprehensively describe:
  • Type of intervention and reasoning (e.g. pharmacological, surgical, physiotherapy, psychological etc.)
  • Aim of intervention (preventative/therapeutic)
  • Concurrent treatments (e.g. antibiotics, analgesia, anti-emetics, VTE prophylaxis etc.)
  • Manufacturer and model details, where applicable
 N/A
7c Intra-intervention considerations – comprehensively describe:
  • Details pertaining to administration of intervention (e.g. anaesthetic, positioning, location, preparation, equipment needed, devices, sutures, operative techniques, operative time etc.)
  • Details of pharmacological therapies used, including formulation, dosages, routes, and durations
  • Figures and other media are used to illustrate
 N/A
7d Operator details – comprehensively describe:
  • Requirement for additional training
  • Learning curve for technique
  • Relevant training, specialisation and operator’s experience (e.g. average number of the relevant procedures performed annually)
 3
7e Quality control – comprehensively describe:
  • Measures taken to reduce inter-operator variability
  • Measures taken to ensure consistency in other aspects of intervention delivery
  • Measures taken to ensure quality in intervention delivery
 3
7f Post-intervention considerations – comprehensively describe:
  • Post-operative instructions (e.g. avoid heavy lifting) and care
  • Follow-up measures
  • Future surveillance requirements (e.g. blood tests, imaging etc.)
 N/A
8 Outcomes – comprehensively describe:
  • Primary outcomes, including validation, where applicable
  • Secondary outcomes, where appropriate
  • Definition of outcomes
  • If any validated outcome measurement tools are used, give full reference
  • Follow-up period for outcome assessment, divided by group
 3
9 Statistics – comprehensively describe:
  • Statistical tests and statistical package(s)/software used
  • Confounders and their control, if known
  • Analysis approach (e.g. intention to treat/per protocol)
  • Any sub-group analyses
  • Level of statistical significance
 3-4
RESULTS
10a Participants – comprehensively describe:
  • Flow of participants (recruitment, non-participation, cross-over and withdrawal, with reasons). Use figure to illustrate.
  • Population demographics (e.g. age, gender, relevant socioeconomic features, prognostic features etc.)
  • Any significant numerical differences should be highlighted
 4
10b Participant comparison
  • Include table comparing baseline characteristics of cohort groups
  • Give differences, with statistical relevance
  • Describe any group matching, with methods
 4
10c Intervention – comprehensively describe:
  • Degree of novelty of intervention
  • Learning required for interventions
  • Any changes to interventions, with rationale and diagram, if appropriate
 N/A
11a Outcomes – comprehensively describe:
  • Clinician-assessed and patient-reported outcomes for each group
  • Relevant photographs and imaging are desirable
  • Any confounding factors and state which ones are adjusted
 4
11b Tolerance – comprehensively describe:
  • Assessment of tolerability of exposure/intervention
  • Cross-over with explanation
  • Loss to follow-up (fraction and percentage), with reasons
 N/A
11c Complications – comprehensively describe:
  • Adverse events and classify according to Clavien-Dindo classification*
  • Timing of adverse events
  • Mitigation for adverse events (e.g. blood transfusion, wound care, revision surgery etc.)
*Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of Surgical Complications. A New Proposal with Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240(2): 205-213		 4
12 Key results – comprehensively describe:
  • Key results with relevant raw data
  • Statistical analyses with significance
  • Include table showing research findings and statistical analyses with significance
 4-19
DISCUSSION
13 Discussion – comprehensively describe:
  • Conclusions and rationale
  • Reference to relevant literature
  • Implications for clinical practice
  • Comparison to current gold standard of care
  • Relevant hypothesis generation
 19-23
14 Strengths and limitations – comprehensively describe:
  • Strengths of the study
  • Weaknesses and limitations of the study and potential impact on results and their interpretation
  • Assessment and management of bias
  • Deviations from protocol, with reasons
 23
15 Relevance and implications – comprehensively describe:
  • Relevance of findings and potential implications for clinical practice
  • Need for and direction of future research, with optimal study designs mentioned
 23
CONCLUSION
16 Conclusions
  • Summarise key conclusions
  • Outline key directions for future research
 23-24
DECLARATIONS
17a Conflicts of interest
  • Conflicts of interest, if any, are described
 24
17b Funding
  • Sources of funding (e.g. grant details), if any, are clearly stated
  • Role of funder
 24
17c Contributorship
  • Acknowledge patient and public involvement in research; report the extent of involvement of each contributor
 24

Appendix B. PICO questions

General primary outcome– postoperative complications
For elective colorectal surgery (ECRS), is the use of any medication associated with a lower incidence of postoperative complication?
  • Is any IV antibiotic or combination of IV and oral antibiotics associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital or post-discharge SSI?
    a.
    Is preoperative iron therapy associated with a lower incidence?
    b.
    Is in-hospital insulin therapy associated with a lower incidence?
    c.
    Are preoperative oral antibiotics associated with a lower incidence?
    d.
    Is postoperative antibiotic dose/duration associated with a lower incidence?
    e.
    Is documentation of a penicillin and/or cephalosporin allergy associated with a higher incidence of in-hospital or post-discharge SSI?
  • Is any anticoagulant associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital or post-discharge VTE or bleeding/hematoma?
    a.
    Is duration of post-discharge anticoagulation associated with a lower incidence?
    b.
    Is any antiemetic or combination of antiemetics associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital or post-discharge PONV?
    c.
    Is any anesthesia type associated with lower pain, PONV, and postoperative ileus complications?
    d.
    Is any analgesic(s) and adjunctive pain agents or combinations associated with lower total morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and lower incidences of pain and postoperative ileus?
    e.
    Is any combination of antibiotics, anticoagulants, and antiemetics associated with a lower incidence of postoperative complications?
Secondary outcome questions – LOS and readmission rates
  • Is any IV antibiotic or combination of IV and oral antibiotics associated with a shorter LOS or 7- or 30-day readmission?
  • Is any anticoagulant associated with a shorter LOS or 7- or 30-day readmission?
  • Is any antiemetic or combination of antiemetics associated with a shorter LOS or lower 7- or 30-day readmission?
  • Is any anesthesia type associated with a shorter LOS or lower 7- or 30-day readmission?
  • Is any analgesic(s) and adjunctive pain agents or combinations associated with a shorter LOS or lower 7- or 30-day readmission?
Procedure-related questions
  • Is any surgical technique associated with a shorter LOS or lower 7- or 30-day readmission?
  • Is any anatomical surgical site location associated with a shorter LOS or lower 7- or 30-day readmission?

References

  1. Gustafsson, U.O.; Scott, M.J.; Hubner, M.; Nygren, J.; Demartines, N.; Francis, N.; Rockall, T.A.; Young-Fadok, T.M.; Hill, A.G.; Soop, M.; et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations: 2018. World J. Surg. 2019, 43, 659–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. AlBalawi, Z.; Gramlich, L.; Nelson, G.; Senior, P.; Youngson, E.; McAlister, F.A. The impact of the implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) program in an entire health system: A natural experiment in Alberta, Canada. World J. Surg. 2018, 42, 2691–2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Thanh, N.; Nelson, A.; Wang, X.; Faris, P.; Wasylak, T.; Gramlich, L.; Nelson, G. Return on investment of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) multiguideline, multisite implementation in Alberta, Canada. Can. J. Surg. 2020, 63, E542–E550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Martin, L.; Gillis, C.; Atkins, M.; Gillam, M.; Sheppard, C.; Buhlerm, S.; Hammond, C.B.; Nelson, G.; Gramlich, L. Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program can change nutrition care practice: A multicenter experience in elective colorectal surgery. J. Parenter. Enteral Nutr. 2019, 43, 206–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Parrish, R.H., 2nd; Findley, R.; Elias, K.M.; Kramer, B.; Johnson, E.G.; Gramlich, L. Nelson, G.S. Pharmacotherapeutic prophylaxis and post-operative outcomes within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) program: A randomized retrospective cohort study. Ann. Med. Surg. (Lond.) 2022, 73, 103178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gramlich, L.M.; Sheppard, C.E.; Wasylak, T.; Gilmour, L.E.; Ljungqvist, O.; Basualdo-Hammond, C.; Nelson, G. Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: a strategy to transform surgical care across a health system. Implement. Sci. 2017, 12, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Wijk, L.; Udumyan, R.; Pache, B. Altman, A.D.; Williams, L.L.; Elias, K.M.; McGee, J.; Wells, T.; Gramlich, L.; Holcomb, K.; Achtari, C.; Ljungqvist, O.; Dowdy, S.C.; Nelson, G. International validation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society guidelines on enhanced recovery for gynecologic surgery. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 221, 237.e1–237.e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bisch, S.P.; Wells, T.; Gramlich, L.; Faris, P.; Wang, X.; Tran, D.T.; Thanh, N.X.; Glaze, S.; Chu, P.; Ghatage, P.; et al. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in gynecologic oncology: System-wide implementation and audit leads to improved value and patient outcomes. Gynecol. Oncol. 2018, 151, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Nelson, G.; Wang, X.; Nelson, A.; Faris, P.; Lagendyk, L.; Wasylak, T.; Bathe, O.F.; Bigam, D.; Bruce, E.; Buie, W.D.; et al. Evaluation of the implementation of multiple Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathways across a provincial health care system in Alberta, Canada. J.A.M.A. Netw. Open. 2021, 4, e2119769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Albert, H.; Bataller, W.; Masroor, N.; Doll, M.; Cooper, K.; Spencer, P.; Winborne, D.; Zierden, E.M.; Stevens, M.P.; Scott, M.; Bearman, G. Infection prevention and enhanced recovery after surgery: A partnership for implementation of an evidence-based bundle to reduce colorectal surgical site infections. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2019, 47, 718–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Deery, S.E.; Cavallaro, P.M.; McWalters, S.T.; Reilly, S.R.; Bonnette, H.M.; Rattner, D.W.; Mort, E.A.; Hooper, D.C.; Del Carmen, M.G.; Bordeianou, L.G. Colorectal surgical site infection prevention kits prior to elective colectomy improve outcomes. Ann. Surg. 2020, 271, 1110–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Liu, Z.; Dumville, J.C.; Norman, G.; Westby, M.J.; Blazeby, J.; McFarlane, E.; Welton, N.J.; O'Connor, L.; Cawthorne, J.; George, R.P.; et al. Intraoperative interventions for preventing surgical site infection: An overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 2, CD012653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bowder, A.N.; Yen, C.F.; Bebell, L.M.; Fernandes, A.R. Intravenous cephalosporin versus non-cephalosporin-based prophylaxis to prevent surgical site infections in colorectal surgery patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Med. Surg. (Lond.). 2021, 67, 102401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. El-Dhuwaib, Y.; Selvasekar, C.; Corless, D.J.; Deakin, M.; Slavin, J.P. Venous thromboembolism following colorectal resection. Colorectal Dis. 2017, 19, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cui, G.; Wang, X.; Yao, W.; Li, H. Incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism after laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutan. Tech. 2013, 23, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Sammour, T.; Chandra, R.; Moore, J.W. Extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after colorectal cancer surgery: the current state of the evidence. J. Thromb. Thrombolysis. 2016, 42, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kakkos, S.K.; Caprini, J.A.; Geroulakos, G.; Nicolaides, A.N.; Stansby, G.P.; Reddy, D.J. Cochrane Library Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 9, CD005258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fero, K.E.; Jalota, L.; Hornuss, C.; Apfel, C.C. Pharmacologic management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2011, 12, 2283–2296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gan, T.J.; Belani, K.G.; Bergese, S.; Chung, F.; Diemunsch, P.; Habib, A.S.; Jin, Z.; Kovac, A.L.; Meyer, T.A.; Urman, R.D.; et al. Fourth consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth. Analg. 2020, 131, 411–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Antor, M.A.; Uribe, A.A.; Erminy-Falcon, N.; Werner, J.G.; Candiotti, K.A.; Pergolizzi, J.V.; Bergese, S.D. The effect of transdermal scopolamine for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Front. Pharmacol. 2014, 5, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kim, J.H. Lim, M-S.; Choi, J.W.; Kim, H.; Kwon, Y-S.; Lee, J.J. Comparison of the effects of sugammadex, neostigmine, and pyridostigmine on postoperative nausea and vomiting: A propensity matched study of five hospitals. J. Clin. Med. (Basel). 2020, 9, 3477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Schwartz, J.; Gan, T.J. Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the context of an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery program. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Anaesthesiol. 2020, 34, 687–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. McLoughlin, S.; Terrasa, S.A. Ljungqvist, O.; Sanchez, G.; Garcia Fornari, G.; Alvarez, A.O. Nausea and vomiting in a colorectal ERAS program: Impact on nutritional recovery and the length of hospital stay. Clin. Nutr. E.S.P.E.N. 2019, 34, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Al-Mazrou, A.M.; Baser, O.; Kiran, R.P. Alvimopan, regardless of ileus risk, significantly impacts ileus, length of stay, and readmission after intestinal surgery. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2018, 22, 2104–2116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kirchhoff, P.; Clavien, P.A.; Hahnloser, D. Complications in colorectal surgery: Risk factors and preventive strategies. Patient Saf. Surg. 2010, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Apfel, C.C.; Heidrich, F.M.; Jukar-Rao, S.; Jalota, L.; Hornuss, C.; Whelan, R.P.; Zhang, K.; Cakmakkaya, O.S. Evidence-based analysis of risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Br. J. Anaesth. 2012, 109, 742–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Pędziwiatr, M.; Pisarska, M.; Kisielewski, M.; Matłok, M.; Major, P.; Wierdak, M.; Budzyński, A.; Ljungqvist, O. Is ERAS in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer changing risk factors for delayed recovery? Med. Oncol. 2016, 33, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Renz, B.W.; Kasparek, M.S.; Seeliger, H.; Worthley, D.L.; Jauch, K.W.; Kreis, M.E.; Smith, M.J.; Mueller, M.H. The CR-POSSUM risk calculator predicts failure of enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery. Acta. Chir. Belg. 2015, 115, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Chan, D.K.H.; Ang, J.J.; Tan, J.K.H.; Chia, D.K.A. Age is an independent risk factor for increased morbidity in elective colorectal cancer surgery despite an ERAS protocol. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2020, 405, 673–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hardt, J.; Pilz, L.; Magdeburg, J.; Kienle, P.; Post, S.; Magdeburg, R. Preoperative hypoalbuminemia is an independent risk factor for increased high-grade morbidity after elective rectal cancer resection. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2017, 32, 1439–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hassinger, T.E.; Krebs, E.D.; Turrentine, F.E.; Thiele, R.H.; Sarosiek, B.M.; Hoang, S.C.; Friel, C.M.; Hedrick, T.L. Preoperative opioid use is associated with increased risk of postoperative complications within a colorectal-enhanced recovery protocol. Surg. Endosc. 2021, 35, 2067–2074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Riedl, J.M.; Posch, F.; Bezan, A.; Szkandera, J.; Smolle, M.A.; Winder, T.; Rossmann, C.H.; Schaberl-Moser, R.; Pichler, M.; Stotz, M. Stöger, H.; Gerger, A. Patterns of venous thromboembolism risk in patients with localized colorectal cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy or active surveillance: An observational cohort study. BMC Cancer. 2017, 17, 415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Destan, C.; Brouquet, A.; De Carbonnières, A.; Genova, P.; Fessenmeyer, C.; De Montblanc, J.; Costaglioli, B.; Lambert, B.; Penna, C.; Benoist, S. What are the risk factors of failure of enhanced recovery after right colectomy? Results of a prospective study on 140 consecutive cases. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2020, 35, 1291–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bagnall, N.M.; Pring, E.T.; Malietzis, G.; Athanasiou, T.; Faiz, O.D.; Kennedy, R.H.; Jenkins, J.T. Perioperative risk prediction in the era of enhanced recovery: a comparison of POSSUM, ACPGBI, and E-PASS scoring systems in major surgical procedures of the colorectal surgeon. Int J. Colorectal Dis. 2018, 33, 1627–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bratzler, D.W.; Dellinger, E.P.; Olsen, K.M.; Perl, T.M.; Auwaerter, P.G.; Bolon, M.K.; Fish, D.N.; Napolitano, L.M.; Sawyer, R.G.; Slain, D.; et al.; American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP); Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA); Surgical Infection Society (SIS); Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2013, 14, 73–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sangiorgio, G.; Vacante, M.; Basile, F.; Biondi, A. Oral and parenteral vs. parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection: An intervention review with meta-analysis. Antibiotics (Basel). 2021, 11, 11010021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kulasegarah, J.; McGregor, K.; Mahadevan, M. Quality of information on the Internet—has a decade made a difference? Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2018, 187, 873–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Rajyaguru, C.; Sandhu, U.; Hadjis, A.; Dere, J.; Panchal, S.; Ja, A.; Ong, N.; Yu, S.; Yu, J.; Lee, S.Y.; Lee, B.K. US hospital webpages on atrial fibrillation ablation: A potential source for misinformation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2022, 33, 1987–1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Harris, P.A.; Taylor, R.; Minor, B.L.; Elliott, V.; Fernandez, M.; O'Neal, L.; McLeod, L.; Delacqua, G.; Delacqua, F.; Kirby, J.; Duda, S.N. ; The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J. Biomed. Inform. 2019, 95, 103208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Lovely, J.K.; Hyland, S.J.; Smith, A.N.; Nelson, G.; Ljungqvist, O.; Parrish, R.H. , 2nd. Clinical pharmacist perspectives for optimizing pharmacotherapy within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) programs. Int. J. Surg. 2019, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Johnson, E.; Parrish, R.H. , 2nd.; Nelson, G.; Elias, K.; Kramer, B.; Gaviola, M. Expanding pharmacotherapy data collection, analysis, and implementation in ERAS® Programs—The methodology of an exploratory feasibility study. Healthcare. 2020, 8, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. McAuley, D. Opioid Conversion Calculator Morphine Equivalents - Advanced. https://globalrph.com/medcalcs/opioid-pain-management-converter-advanced/. Accessed September 19, 2022.
  43. Dindo, D.; Demartines, N.; Clavien, A.P. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Mathew, G.; Agha, R.; STROCSS group. STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery. Int. J. Surg. 2021, 96, 106165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Jaber, S.; Garnier, M.; Asehnoune, K.; Bounes, F.; Buscail, L.; Chevaux, J.B.; Dahyot-Fizelier, C.; Darrivere, L.; Jabaudon, M.; Joannes-Boyau, O.; Launey, Y.; Levesque, E.; Levy, P.; Montravers, P.; Muller, L.; Rimmelé, T.; Roger, C.; Savoye-Collet, C.; Seguin, P.; Tasu, J.; Thibault, R.; Vanbiervliet, G.; Weiss, E.; De Jong, A. Guidelines for the management of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, 2021. Anaesth. Crit. Care Pain Med. 2022, 41, 101060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Berna, P.; Quesnel, C.; Assouad, J.; Bagan, P.; Etienne, H.; Fourdrain, A.; Le Guen, M.; Leone, M.; Lorne, E.; Nguyen, Y.N.; Pages, P.B.; Roz, H.; Garnier, M. Guidelines on enhanced recovery after pulmonary lobectomy. Anaesth. Crit. Care Pain Med. 2021, 40, 100791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Goodman, S.M.; Springer, B.D.; Chen, A.F.; Davis, M.; Fernandez, D.R.; Figgie, M.; Finlayson, H.; George, M.D.; Giles, J.T.; Gilliland, J.; Klatt, B.; MacKenzie, R.; Michaud, K.; Miller, A.; Russell, L.; Sah, A.; Abdel, M.P.; Johnson, B.; Mandl, L.A.; Sculco, P.; Turgunbaev, M.; Turner, A.S.; Yates, A. Jr.; Singh, J.A. 2022 American College of Rheumatology/ American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Guideline for the Perioperative Management of Antirheumatic Medication in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases Undergoing Elective Total Hip or Total Knee Arthroplasty. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken). 2022, 74, 1399–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Douketis, J.D.; Spyropoulos, A.C.; Murad, M.H.; Arcelus, J.I.; Dager, W.E.; Dunn, A.S.; Fargo, R.A. Levy, J.H.; Samama, C.M.; Shah, S.H.; Sherwood, M.W.; Tafur, A.J.; Tang, L.V.; Moores, L.K.. Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy. Chest. 2022, 162, e207–e243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wilson, S.E.; Turpin, R.S.; Kumar, R.N.; Itani, K.M.; Jensen, E.H.; Pellissier, J.M.; Abramson, M.A. Comparative costs of ertapenem and cefotetan as prophylaxis for elective colorectal surgery. Surg. Infect. (Larchmt). 2008, 9, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mahmoud, N.N.; Turpin, R.S.; Yang, G.; Saunders, W.B. Impact of surgical site infections on length of stay and costs in selected colorectal procedures. Surg. Infect. (Larchmt). 2009, 10, 539–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Field, A.M.; Seabury, R.W.; Kufel, W.D.; Darko, W.; Miller, C.D.; Mastro, K.A.; Steele, J.M. Single-Dose Antibiotic Prophylaxis with Ertapenem Increases Compliance with Recommendations for Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Retrospective, Single-Center Analysis. Surg. Infect. (Larchmt). 2023, 24, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Itani, K.M.; Wilson, S.E.; Awad, S.S.; Jensen, E.H.; Finn, T.S.; Abramson, M.A. Ertapenem versus cefotetan prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006, 355, 2640–2651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Itani, K.M.; Jensen, E.H.; Finn, T.S.; Tomassini, J.E.; Abramson, M.A. Effect of body mass index and ertapenem versus cefotetan prophylaxis on surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery. Surg. Infect. (Larchmt). 2008, 9, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nutman, A.; Temkin, E.; Harbarth, S.; Carevic, B.; Ris, F.; Fankhauser-Rodriguez, C.; Radovanovic, I.; Dubinsky-Pertzov, B.; Cohen-Percia, S.; Kariv, Y.; et al. Personalized ertapenem prophylaxis for carriers of extended-spectrum β-Lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae undergoing colorectal surgery. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 70, 1891–1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hoffman, T.; Lellouche, J.; Nutman, A.; Temkin, E.; Frenk, S.; Harbarth, S. Carevic, B.; Cohen-Percia, S.; Kariv, Y.; Fallach, N.; et al.; Resistance in Gram-Negative Organisms: Studying Intervention Strategies (R-GNOSIS) WP4 Study Group. The effect of prophylaxis with ertapenem versus cefuroxime/metronidazole on intestinal carriage of carbapenem-resistant or third-generation-cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales after colorectal surgery. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2021, 27, 1481–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Solomkin, J.S.; Mazuski, J.E.; Bradley, J.S.; Rodvold, K.A.; Goldstein, E.J.; Baron, E.J.; O'Neill, P.J.; Chow, A.W.; Dellinger, E.P.; Eachempati, S.R.; et al. Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 50, 133–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Koo, C.H.; Chok, A.Y.; Wee, I.J.Y.; Seow-En, I.; Zhao, Y.; Tan, E.J.K.W. Effect of preoperative oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation on the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery, and does oral antibiotic regime matter? a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2023, 38, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Zimmermann, P.; Curtis, N. The effect of antibiotics on the composition of the intestinal microbiota - a systematic review. J. Infect. 2019, 79, 471–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Itani, K.M.F.; Dellinger, E.P.; Mazuski, J.; Solomkin, J.; Allen, G.; Blanchard, J.C.; Kelz, R.; Berríos-Torres, S.I. . Surgical Site Infection Research Opportunities. Surg. Infect. (Larchmt). 2017, 18, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Emoto, S.; Nozawa, H.; Kawai, K.; Hata, K.; Tanaka, T.; Shuno, Y.; Nishikawa, T.; Sasaki, K.; Kaneko, M.; Hiyoshi, M.; Murono, K.; Ishihara, S. Venous thromboembolism in colorectal surgery: Incidence, risk factors, and prophylaxis. Asian J. Surg. 2019, 42, 863–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Streiff, M.B.; Holmstrom, B.; Angelini, D.; Ashrani, A.; Elshoury, A.; Fanikos, J.; Fertrin, K.Y.; Fogerty, A.E.; Gao, S.; Goldhaber, S.Z.; et al. Cancer-associated venous thromboembolic disease, version 2.21, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2021, 19, 1181–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Anderson, D.R.; Morgano, G.P.; Bennett, C.; Dentali, F.; Francis, C.W.; Garcia, D.A.; Kahn, S.R.; Rahman, M.; Rajasekhar, A.; Rogers, F.B.; et al. American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients. Blood Adv. 2019, 3, 3898–3944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Halabi, W.J.; Jafari, M.D.; Nguyen, V.Q.; Carmichael, J.C.; Mills, S.; Stamos, M.J.; Pigazzi, A. A nationwide analysis of the use and outcomes of epidural analgesia in open colorectal surgery. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2013, 17, 1130–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Veeranki, S.P.; Xiao, Z.; Levorsen, A.; Sinha, M.; Shah, B. A Real-World Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Thromboprophylactic Use of Enoxaparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin in Abdominal Surgery Patients in a Large U.S. Hospital Database. Hosp. Pharm. 2022, 57, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ladha, D.; Mallick, R.; Wang, T.F.; Caiano, L.; Wells, P.S.; Carrier, M. Efficacy and safety of apixaban for primary prevention in gastrointestinal cancers: A post-hoc analysis of the AVERT trial. Thromb. Res. 2021, 202, 151–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Becattini, C.; Pace, U. Pirozzi, F.; Donini, A.; Avruscio, G.; Rondelli, F.; Boncompagni, M.; Chiari, D.; De Prizio, M.; Visonà, A.; et al. Rivaroxaban vs placebo for extended antithrombotic prophylaxis after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Blood. 2022, 140, 900–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Aiken, T.J.; King, R.; Russell, M.M.; Regenbogen, S.E.; Lawson, E.; Zafar, S.N. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following colorectal surgery: a survey of American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgery (ASCRS) member surgeons. J. Thromb. Thrombolysis. 2023, 55, 376–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pierre, S.; Corno, G.; Benais, H.; Apfel, C.C. A risk score-dependent antiemetic approach effectively reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting--a continuous quality improvement initiative. Can. J. Anaesth. 2004, 51, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Tan, H.S.; Dewinter, G.; Habib, A.S. The next generation of antiemetics for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Anaesthesiol. 2020, 34, 759–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kim, J.T.; Park, J.Y.; Lee, H.J.; Cheon, Y.J. Guidelines for the management of extravasation. J. Educ. Eval. Health Prof. 2020, 17, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Roberts, G.W.; Bekker, T.B.; Carlsen, H.H.; Moffatt, C.H.; Slattery, P.J.; McClure, A.F. Postoperative nausea and vomiting are strongly influenced by postoperative opioid use in a dose-related manner. Anesth. Analg. 2005, 101, 1343–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chiu, C.; Aleshi, P.; Esserman, L.J.; Inglis-Arkell, C.; Yap, E.; Whitlock, E.L.; Harbell, M.W. Improved analgesia and reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for total mastectomy. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018, 18, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Weibel, S.; Jokinen, J.; Pace, N.L.; Schnabel, A.; Hollmann, M.W.; Hahnenkamp, K.; Eberhart, L.H.; Poepping, D.M.; Afshari, A.; Kranke, P. Efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative analgesia and recovery after surgery: a systematic review with trial sequential analysis. Br. J. Anaesth. 2016, 116, 770–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sarakatsianou, C.; Perivoliotis, K.; Tzovaras, G.; Samara, A.A.; Baloyiannis, I. Efficacy of Intravenous Use of Lidocaine in Postoperative Pain Management After Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-analysis and Meta-regression of RCTs. In Vivo. 2021, 35, 3413–3421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ng, K.T.; Yap, J.L.L.; Izham, I.N. Teoh, W.Y.; Kwok, P.E.; Koh, W.J. The effect of intravenous magnesium on postoperative morphine consumption in noncardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2020, 37, 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hussain, N.; Brull, R.; Sheehy, B.; Essandoh, M.K.; Stahl, D.L.; Weaver, T.E.; Abdallah, F.W. Perineural Liposomal Bupivacaine Is Not Superior to Nonliposomal Bupivacaine for Peripheral Nerve Block Analgesia. Anesthesiology. 2021, 134, 147–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Marcotte, J.H.; Patel, K.M.; Gaughan, J.P.; Dy, J.; Kwiatt, M.E.; McClane, S.J.; Desai, R.G. Oral Versus Intravenous Acetaminophen within an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol in Colorectal Surgery. Pain Physician. 2020, 23, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Vincent, W.R. , 3rd.; Huiras, P.; Empfield, J.; Horbowicz, K.J.; Lewis, K.; McAneny, D.; Twitchell, D. Controlling postoperative use of i.v. acetaminophen at an academic medical center. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2018, 75, 548–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Research Services Inc. Entereg® (alvimopan) package insert. Horsham, PA; 2022. Available online: https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/e/entereg/entereg_pi.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2023.
  80. Gemma, M.; Pennoni, F.; Braga, M. Studying Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Core Items in Colorectal Surgery: A Causal Model with Latent Variables. World J. Surg. 2021, 45, 928–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Patient baseline characteristics by LOS as a comparison p value
Table 1. Patient baseline characteristics by LOS as a comparison p value
Age (yrs.) Female 59.4 (±14.7) 1.000
Male 56.2 (±16.0)
Sex (n; %) Female 247 (51.9) 0.761
Male 229 (48.1)
Race (n; %) Asian 12 (2.5) 0.689
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1 (0.2)
Black or African American 59 (12.4)
White 382 (80.3)
Hispanic 6 (1.3)
Unknown/Not reported 16 (3.3)
Weight (kg) 82 ± 21 0.874
Preoperative eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) 80.9 ± 24.91 0.632
Ethanol history / week None 329 (72.5) 0.998
1-7 drinks 109 (24.0)
8-14 drinks 9 (2.0)
Greater than 14 drinks 7 (1.5)
Documented drug
allergy 		None 255 (53.6) 0.733
Non-penicillin/
non-cephalosporin		 177 (80.1)
Penicillin 60 (27.1)
Cephalosporin 9 (4.1)
Preoperative
cancer diagnosis 		Yes 210 (44.1) 0.381
No 266 (55.9)
Neoadjuvant
therapy 		None 144 (68.6) 0.114
Chemotherapy 64 (30.5)
Radiation 34 (16.2)
Table 2. Intestinal and procedure-related variables
Table 2. Intestinal and procedure-related variables
Procedure-related variable (n; %)
Intestinal segment
(includes multiple colonic segments) 		Sigmoid colon 242 (50.8)
Rectum 150 (31.5)
Ascending colon (including hepatic flexure) 146 (30.7)
Descending colon (including splenic flexure) 145 (30.5)
Small intestine 122 (25.6)
Transverse colon 119 (25.0)
Cecum 75 (15.8)
Appendix 16 (3.4)
Surgical technique Laparoscopic 243 (51.0)
Open 137 (28.8)
Robotic 96 (20.2)
American Society of
Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 		I 2 (0.4)
II 167 (35.1)
III 289 (60.7)
IV 18 (3.8)
Estimated blood loss during surgery
(mL ± s.d) 		119.6 ± 190.2
Table 3. Prophylactic anti-infective use variables
Table 3. Prophylactic anti-infective use variables
In-hospital SSI 16 (3.4)
In-hospital infections 35 (7.4)
Post-discharge
infections 		40 (8.5)
Pre-incisional IVA
administered? 		Yes 467 (98.1)
More than 1 IVA
administered? 		Yes 246 (52.7)
Intraoperative IVA
re-dose administered? 		Yes 177 (37.2)
First (or only) IVA
administered 		Cefazolin 2 g 124 (26.6)
Cefoxitin 2 g 106 (22.7)
Ertapenem 1 g 80 (17.1)
Metronidazole 500 mg 62 (13.3)
Cefotetan 2 g 52 (11.1)
Ampicillin 1 g 9 (1.9)
Piperacillin/tazobactam 3.375 g 4 (0.8)
Ceftriaxone 2 g 3 (0.6)
Piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g 2 (0.4)
Ampicillin/sulbactam 3 g 1 (0.2)
Vancomycin 1 g 1 (0.2)
Second IVA
administered 		Metronidazole 500 mg 126 (51.6)
Cefazolin 2 g 49 (20.1)
Ampicillin 1 g 30 (12.2)
Combination IVA
administered 		Cefazolin 2 g/metronidazole 500 mg 158 (33.2)
Cefoxitin 2g/ampicillin 1 g 39 (8.2)
Metronidazole 500 mg/gentamicin 5 mg/kg 9 (1.9)
Clindamycin 600 mg/gentamicin 5 mg/kg 5 (1.0)
Cefazolin combinations (other) 5 (1.0)
Ciprofloxacin 400 mg/metronidazole 500 mg 3 (0.6)
Cefotetan 2 g/metronidazole 500 mg 1 (0.2)
Levofloxacin 500 mg/metronidazole 500 mg 1 (0.2)
Postoperative IVA
administered? 		Yes 98 (24.1)
Duration of
postoperative IVA 		1 dose 7 (7.1)
2 doses 12 (12.1)
3 doses 14 (14.3)
4 doses 21 (21.4)
>4 doses 44 (44.9)
Timing of IVA prior to
incision 		0 – 15 min 158 (33.8)
16 – 30 min 170 (36.4)
31– 45 min 68 (14.6)
46– 60 min 31 (6.6)
>60 min 35 (7.5)
Skin preparation
administered 		Chlorhexidine 382 (80.3)
Povidone-iodine 104 (21.8)
None 15 (3.2)
Table 4. The overall most frequently used intravenous antibiotics, LOS, and infection rates, 7- and 30-day readmission
Table 4. The overall most frequently used intravenous antibiotics, LOS, and infection rates, 7- and 30-day readmission
Antibiotic
(N of patients treated –
doses inTable 3) 		Ave LOS Hospital infection rate (%) Discharge infection rate (%) 7-day re-admit rate (%) 30-day re-admit rate (%)
C/M (158) 5.0 9.7 7.1 2.6 10.3
ertapenem (80) 5.0 5.0 11.4 8.9 8.0
cefoxitin (76) 7.1 10.4 6.5 5.2 6.5
cefotetan (52) 5.9 0 11.5 5.8 7.7
ampicillin/cefoxitin (39) 5.7 3.0 6.0 9.1 6.0
Sub-total (405) 5.6 7.1 8.3 5.3 8.3
Penicillin or cephalosporin allergic patients
metronidazole/
gentamicin (9)		 7.7 0 0 0 11.1
metronidazole (5) 2.0 0 0 0 0
clindamycin/
gentamicin (5)		 5.5 20.0 0 20.0 0
levofloxacin (4) 6.0 0 25.0 0 0
ciprofloxacin/
metronidazole (3)		 4.7 0 33.3 0 0
vancomycin (1) 6 0 0 0 0
Sub-total (27) 6.7 3.7 7.4 3.7 3.7
Miscellaneous beta-lactams and combinations
cefazolin (7) 6.3 14.3 28.6 28.6 14.3
piperacillin/tazobactam (6) 11.5 16.7 16.7 16.7 0
cefazolin combinations (other) (5) 4.6 0 0 0 0
ceftriaxone (3) 5.7 33.3 0 0 0
ampicillin/sulbactam (1) 11 0 0 0 0
cefotetan/
metronidazole (1)		 2 0 0 0 0
Sub-total (23) 7.2 13.0 13.0 13.0 0
None (21) 3.7 0 0 0 0
Totals (476) 5.5 6.7 8.0 5.3 7.4
Table 5. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis use variables
Table 5. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis use variables
Preoperative anticoagulant
administered? 		Yes 368 (77.3)
UFH 5000 units SC w/in 6 h 364 (98.9)
Postoperative in-hospital anticoagulant administered? Yes 453 (95,2)
Enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily 262 (57.8)
UFH 5000 units SC q8h 125 (27.6)
UFH 5000 units SC q8h
followed by enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily		 31 (6.8)
UFH 5000 units SC q12h 21 (4.6)
Enoxaparin 40 mg SC q12h 7 (1.5)
UFH 5000 units SC q8h followed by enoxaparin 40 mg SC q12h 4 (0.9)
UFH 5000 units SC q12h
followed by enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily		 3 (0.7)
N of postoperative in-hospital doses
administered 		0 1 (0.2)
1 25 (5.5)
2 72 (15.8)
3 73 (16.0)
4 45 (9.9)
5 32 (7.0)
6 31 (6.8)
7 25 (5.5)
>7* 152 (33.3)
* mostly because of q12h and q8h dosing
Non-pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in hospital (multiple methods included) None 18 (3.8)
Ambulation 274 (57.6)
Compression stockings 4 (0.8)
Sequential compression
device		 364 (76.5)
Post-discharge at-home anticoagulant given? Yes 128 (26.9)
Enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily 83 (64.8)
Apixaban 2.5 mg PO twice daily 29 (22.7)
Rivaroxaban 10 mg PO daily 11 (8.6)
Warfarin daily
(various doses)		 5 (3.9)
Days postoperative at-home anticoagulant 1 – 7 days 2 (1.6)
8 – 14 days 8 (6.4)
15 – 21 days 30 (21.0)
22 – 28 days 54 (43.2)
>28 days 31 (24.8)
Cancer patients receiving at-home VTE prophylaxis (96/210) Enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily 64 (66.7)
Apixaban 2.5 mg PO twice daily 16 (16.7)
Warfarin PO daily at various doses 5 (5.2)
Apixaban 5 mg PO twice daily 4 (4.2)
Rivaroxaban 20 mg PO daily 4 (4.2)
Rivaroxaban 15 mg PO daily 2 (2.0)
Rivaroxaban 10 mg PO daily 1 (1.0)
Anticoagulant dose adjusted based on weight Yes 7 (1.2)
Anticoagulant dose adjusted based on
renal function 		Yes 6 (1.6)
Table 6. The most frequently used anticoagulant regimens, LOS, and numbers and rates of VTE, in-hospital and discharge bleeding / hematoma, and readmission
Table 6. The most frequently used anticoagulant regimens, LOS, and numbers and rates of VTE, in-hospital and discharge bleeding / hematoma, and readmission
Anticoagulant regimen
(frequency of use) 		Ave LOS (d) VTE rate (%) Hospital bleeding / hematoma rate % Discharge bleeding / hematoma rate (%) 7 day
re-admit rate (%) 		30 day
re-admit rate (%)
enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily (262) 5.1 0 9.5 2.7 4.9 7.2
heparin 5,000 units SC q8h (125) 5.8 4.8 4.8 0.8 5.6 8.8
heparin 5,000 units q8h /
enoxaparin 40 mg daily (31)		 8.5 3.2 6.4 0 12.9 12.9
heparin 5,000 units SC q12h (21) 6.5 0 4.2 4.2 4.2 8.4
enoxaparin 40 mg SC q12h (7) 11.8 0 14.3 0 0 0
heparin 5,000 units q8h /
enoxaparin 40 mg q12h (4)		 23 0 25 0 0 0
heparin 5,000 units q12h /
enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily (3)		 7 0 0 0 0 0
Totals (453) 5.7 1.5 7.9 1.9 5.5 7.9
Table 7. Comparison of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin use for VTE, bleeding/hematoma, LOS and readmission
Table 7. Comparison of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin use for VTE, bleeding/hematoma, LOS and readmission

Anticoagulant administered
(n includes sequential dual agent
therapy) 		Significance (p-values)
LOS VTE In-hospital bleeding / hematoma Discharge bleeding / hematoma 7-day readmit 30-day readmit
enoxaparin 40 mg SC (307) compared to UFH 5,000 units SC (184) <0.0001 0.004 0.190 0.398 0.834 0.613
Table 8. At-home anticoagulation use and discharge bleeding / hematoma, and readmit rates
Table 8. At-home anticoagulation use and discharge bleeding / hematoma, and readmit rates

Anticoagulant regimen 		Ave days of home therapy Discharge bleeding / hematoma rate (%) 7-day
readmit rate (%) 		30-day
readmit rate (%)
enoxaparin 40 mg SC daily (83) 15-22 1.2 8.4 9.6
apixaban 2.5 mg BID (22) 22-28 0 0 13.6
rivaroxaban 20 mg daily (11) > 28 18.1 0 18.1
apixaban 5 mg BID (7) >28 0 14.2 14.2
warfarin daily (5) > 28 0 20 0
Totals (128) 1.6 7.0 10.9
Table 9. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis use variables
Table 9. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis use variables
Preoperative / intraoperative antiemetic? Yes 417 (87.6)
Antiemetics given prior to induction
(includes multiple agents) 		Dexamethasone IV 186 (44.6)
Ondansetron IV 84 (20.1)
Scopolamine patch 64 (15.3)
Aprepitant PO 4 (1.0)
Prochlorperazine IV 3 (0.7)
Metoclopramide IV 2 (0.5)
Promethazine IV 2 (0.5)
Perphenazine PO 1 (0.2)
Antiemetic given prior to extubation (298) Yes 234 (78.5)
Ondansetron 216 (72.5)
Dexamethasone 100 (33.6)
Scopolamine patch 12 (4.0)
Promethazine 5 (1.7)
Metoclopramide 4 (1.3)
Prochlorperazine 3 (1.0)
Aprepitant PO 1 (0.3)
Postoperative antiemetic (PACU/ward)
for rescue


 Yes 310 (65.1)
Ondansetron IV 251 (81.0)
Ondansetron PO 92 (29.7)
Promethazine IV 75 (24.2)
Prochlorperazine IV 59 (19.0)
Promethazine PO 40 (12.9)
Prochlorperazine PO 16 (5.2)
Metoclopramide IV 7 (2.3)
Metoclopramide PO 5 (1.6)
Palonosetron 2 (0.6)
Number of rescue antiemetic doses
administered postoperatively (excluding aprepitant and scopolamine patch) 		None 48 (16.1)
1 dose 82 (27.3)
2 doses 51 (17.1)
3 doses 32 (10.7)
4 doses 14 (4,7)
5 doses 11 (3.7)
6 doses 11 (3.7)
7 doses 4 (1.3)
> 7 doses 45 (15.1)
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) Yes 228 (47.9)
PONV time of occurrence In PACU 68 (30.5)
<12 hours on ward 69 (30.9)
12 – 24 hours on ward 68 (30.5)
>24 hours on ward 131 (58.7)
Table 10. Antiemetics, anesthetics, and IV fluids administered by PONV and PDNV
Table 10. Antiemetics, anesthetics, and IV fluids administered by PONV and PDNV
Medication or IV fluid p value
Lower PONV
Scopolamine < 0.001
Lidocaine IV < 0.05
Spinal opioid < 0.05
Higher PONV
Prochlorperazine < 0.05
Albumin < 0.05
Lower PDNV
Ondansetron < 0.05
Saline-containing IV < 0.05
Scopolamine < 0.05
Higher PDNV
Spinal opioid < 0.01
Packed red blood < 0.05
Albumin < 0.05
Prochlorperazine < 0.05
Table 11. Pharmacotherapy that can affect PONV
Table 11. Pharmacotherapy that can affect PONV
Administered during hospitalization Propofol 436 (91.6)
Sugammadex 268 (56.3)
Alvimopan 227 (47.7)
Gabapentin 212 (44.5)
Famotidine IV 158 (33.2)
Ketamine IV analgesia bolus 157 (33.0)
Neostigmine 152 (31.9)
Acetaminophen IV 97 (20.4)
Pregabalin 78 (16.4)
Magnesium sulfate IV for pain 75 (15.8)
Dexmedetomidine 65 (13.7)
Ketamine IV continuous 10 (2.1)
Table 12. Pharmacotherapy that can affect POP/POI
Table 12. Pharmacotherapy that can affect POP/POI
Intraoperative anesthesia (includes multiple types) (n; %) Gaseous general 459 (96.4)
Propofol 379 (79.4)
Short-acting opioid (fentanyl, remifentanil) 319 (67.0)
Midazolam 248 (52.1)
TAP block w/ long-acting local anesthetics 114 (23.9)
Dexmedetomidine 65 (13.7)
Epidural 63 (13.2)
Lidocaine continuous IV 55 (11.6)
Wound infiltration w/ non-
liposomal bupivacaine without epinephrine 		28 (5.9)
Wound infiltration w/ non-
liposomal bupivacaine with
epinephrine 		27 (5.7)
Spinal opioid and LA 25 (5.3)
Wound infiltration w/ liposomal bupivacaine only 17 (3.6)
Spinal opioid 12 (2.5)
Nonopioids (includes
multiple agents) (n; %) 		Acetaminophen PO 446 (93.7)
Gabapentin 176 (37.0)
Ketamine IV analgesia bolus 157 (33.0)
Ketorolac IV 143 (30.0)
Methocarbamol 93 (19.5)
Acetaminophen IV 81 (17.0)
Lidocaine 5% patch 79 (16.6)
Ibuprofen PO 75 (15.8)
Magnesium sulfate IV for pain 75 (15.8)
Celecoxib 58 (12.2)
Ibuprofen IV 25 (5.3)
Pregabalin 24 (5.0)
Naproxen 14 (2.9)
Ketamine IV continuous 10 (2.1)
Ketorolac PO 4 (0.9)
Meloxicam PO 3 (0.7)
Additional agents administered during hospitalization (n; %) Sugammadex 268 (56.3)
Alvimopan 227 (47.7)
Famotidine IV 158 (33.2)
Neostigmine 152 (31.9)
Table 13. Anesthetics, analgesics, and adjunctive agents by pain, ileus, morphine milligram equivalents (MME), LOS, and readmission
Table 13. Anesthetics, analgesics, and adjunctive agents by pain, ileus, morphine milligram equivalents (MME), LOS, and readmission
Medication or IV fluid p value
Lower in-hospital pain
TAP block w/ long-acting local anesthetics < 0.001
Lidocaine IV < 0.001
Alvimopan < 0.001
Ketorolac IV < 0.001
Pregabalin < 0.001
Celecoxib < 0.01
Ketamine non-anesthetic bolus < 0.05
Propofol < 0.05
Midazolam < 0.05
Famotidine < 0.05
Higher in-hospital pain
Lidocaine patch < 0.001
Ibuprofen IV < 0.001
Methocarbamol < 0.001
Acetaminophen PO < 0.01
Acetaminophen IV < 0.05
Ibuprofen PO < 0.05
Lower post-discharge pain
Short acting opioid (fentanyl, remifentanil) < 0.001
TAP block w/ long-acting local anesthetics < 0.001
Propofol < 0.001
Alvimopan < 0.001
Lidocaine IV < 0.01
Famotidine < 0.05
Ketamine bolus < 0.05
Midazolam < 0.05
Pregabalin < 0.05
Higher post-discharge pain
Spinal opioid with local anesthetics < 0.001
Spinal opioid < 0.01
Gabapentin < 0.01
Acetaminophen PO < 0.01
Lower ileus
Alvimopan < 0.001
Ketorolac IV < 0.01
Gabapentin < 0.01
Midazolam < 0.01
TAP block w/ long-acting local anesthetics < 0.05
Wound infiltration w/ non-liposomal bupivacaine w/ epinephrine < 0.05
Higher ileus
Ibuprofen IV < 0.001
Magnesium sulfate IV < 0.05
Lower post-discharge ileus
None
Higher post-discharge ileus
Lidocaine IV < 0.05
Less than 50 MME intraoperative
None
Higher than 50 MME intraoperative
Ibuprofen IV < 0.01
Less than 50 MME postoperative
Alvimopan < 0.01
Higher than 50 MME postoperative
Dexmedetomidine < 0.01
Magnesium sulfate < 0.05
Sugammadex < 0.05
Shorter LOS
Acetaminophen PO < 0.01
Alvimopan < 0.01
Acetaminophen IV < 0.01
Lidocaine patch < 0.01
Famotidine < 0.05
Longer LOS
Pregabalin < 0.01
TAP block w/ long-acting local anesthetic < 0.05
Lower 7-day readmission
None
Higher 7-day readmission
Promethazine < 0.01
Gabapentin < 0.05
Lower 30-day readmission
None
Higher 30-day readmission
Ketamine continuous infusion < 0.01
Dexmedetomidine < 0.05
Wound infiltration w/ liposomal bupivacaine < 0.05
Table 14. PICO-style questions with recommendations for medication use to address POCs, LOS, and readmission
Table 14. PICO-style questions with recommendations for medication use to address POCs, LOS, and readmission
PICO question - In elective colorectal
surgery (ECRS): 		Recommendation summary
Antibiotics and surgical site infection (SSI)
  • Which IV antibiotic(s) (IVA) or
    combination of IVA and oral
    antibiotics (OA) is (are) associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital or post-discharge SSI?
 There is no relationship between OA and SSI, in-hospital infection, or post-discharge infection.
2.
Is preoperative iron therapy (ferrous sulfate, ferrous gluconate, iron dextran, feriric derisomaltose, ferric carboxymaltose, ferric gluconate, ferumoxytol, iron sucrose) associated with a lower incidence in-hospital infection?
 Preoperative use of oral iron products is associated with a higher incidence of in-hospital infection (p<0.05).
3.
Is in-hospital insulin therapy (regular sliding scale, regular by basal bolus correction, insulin glargine, insulin
determir, NPH insulin, premixed
insulin 70/30, premixed insulin 75/25, regular insulin infusion) associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital infection?
 No type of insulin therapy in-hospital was associated with lower SSI or post-discharge infection. Use of NPH insulin was associated with higher post-discharge infections (p<0.05).
4.
Which preoperative IVA(s) (ampicillin ampicillin/sulbactam, cefazolin, cefotetan, cefoxitin, ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, ertapenem, gentamicin, levofloxacin, metronidazole, piperacillin/tazobactam, vancomycin) is (are) associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital infection?
 Lower in-hospital infection will occur when either cefotetan or ertapenem are used (p<0.05). Cefoxitin and C/M use were associated with the highest SSI rates (6/106; 5,7% and 7/158; 4.4%, respectively).
5.
Which preoperative IVA(s) is (are)
associated with a lower incidence of post-discharge infection?
 Lower post-discharge infection will occur when cefazolin is used (p<0.05).
6.
Which preoperative IVA(s) is (are)
associated with a shorter LOS or lower 7- or 30-day readmission?
 Longer LOS when cefoxitin or piperacillin/ tazobactam are used (p<0.01).
Anticoagulants and venous thromboembolism (VTE)
7.
Which anticoagulant(s) is (are)
associated with a lower incidence of
in-hospital VTE?
 Enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously (SC) daily was associated with lower in-hospital VTE incidence (OR: 11.3; 95% CI: 1.36-95.25; p=0.025). All VTE events occurred when unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5,000 units SC q8h (UFH) was ordered (n=7; 3.8%; p=0.004).
8.
Which anticoagulant(s) is (are)
associated with a lower incidence of
in-hospital bleeding/ hematoma?
 There was no difference between enoxaparin and UFH regimens for in-hospital bleeding (p=0.19).
9.
Which anticoagulant(s) is (are)
associated with a shorter LOS?
 Average LOS for enoxaparin (5.1 days) and UFH (5.9 days) alone were significantly shorter than for sequential UFH (q8h or q12h) and enoxaparin (daily or q12h (9.7 days) (p=0.004).
10.
Which anticoagulant(s) is (are)
associated with reduced readmission?
 There was no difference between enoxaparin and UFH regimens for 7-day (p=0.83) and 30-day readmission (p=0.61).
Antiemetics and postoperative / post-discharge nausea and vomiting
11.
Which antiemetic(s) and IV fluid(s) is (are) associated with lower PONV/PDNV?
 Lower PONV (p=0.001) and PDNV (p<0.05) will occur when scopolamine patch is used. Lower PONV will occur when lidocaine IV (p<0.05) is used. Lower PDNV will occur when ondansetron and 0.9% NaCl-containing IV infusion are used (p<0.05). Higher PONV and PDNV will occur when prochlorperazine and albumin are used (p<0.05). Higher PDNV will occur when packed red cells are used (p<0.05).
12.
Which antiemetic(s) is (are)
associated with shorter LOS or
readmission?
 No antiemetic was associated with lower 7- or 30-day readmission. Shorter LOS will occur when preoperative famotidine (p<0.05) is used. Lower 7-day readmission will occur when promethazine is not used (p<0.05).
13.
Which anesthetic agent(s) is (are)
associated with lower PONV/PDNV?
 Lower PONV (p<0.05), but higher PDNV (p<0.01) will occur when spinal opioids are used.
14.
Which analgesic(s) and adjunctive agent(s) is (are) associated with lower PONV/PDNV?
 None are associated with lower PONV or PDNV.
Analgesics, anesthetics, and adjunctive agents and pain and ileus
15.
Which anesthesia type(s) is (are)
associated with lower ileus?
 Lower ileus will occur when midazolam (p<0.01) and TAP block with long-acting anesthetics and wound infiltration with non-liposomal bupivacaine w/ epinephrine (p<0.05) are used, and when lidocaine IV is not used (p<0.05).
16.
Which analgesic(s) (acetaminophen IV, acetaminophen oral, celecoxib, ibuprofen IV, ibuprofen oral,
ketorolac IV, lidocaine IV, lidocaine patch, naproxen) and adjunctive pain agents (alvimopan, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine bolus, ketamine infusion, magnesium
sulfate IV, methocarbamol, neostigmine, pregabalin, propofol, sugammadex) or combinations is (are) associated with lower total morphine milligram equivalents (MME)?
 Less than 50 mg intraoperative MME were administered when ibuprofen IV (p<0.01) is not used. Less than 50 mg postoperative MME were administered when alvimopan (p<0.01) is used and when dexmedetomidine (p<0.01), and when magnesium sulfate IV and sugammadex (p<0.05) are not used.
17.
Which analgesic(s) and adjunctive pain agents is (are) associated with lower in-hospital pain?
 Lower in-hospital pain complication when, celecoxib, lidocaine IV, ketorolac IV, TAP block with long-acting local anesthetics, and pregabalin (p<0.001), celecoxib (p<0.01), ketamine non-anesthetic bolus, and propofol are used (p<0.05). Lower pain complication when ibuprofen IV, lidocaine patch, and methocarbamol (p<0.001), acetaminophen PO (p< 0.01), and acetaminophen IV and ibuprofen PO (p<0.05) are used.
18.
Which analgesic(s) and adjunctive pain agents is (are) associated with lower in-hospital and post-discharge ileus?
 None are associated with lower post-discharge ileus in fact, lower post-discharge ileus when lidocaine IV (p<0.05) was not used. Lower in-hospital ileus when alvimopan (p<0.001), ketorolac IV and gabapentin (p<0.01) are used. Lower in-hospital ileus when ibuprofen IV (p<0.001) and magnesium sulfate IV for pain (p<0.05) are not used.
19.
Which analgesic(s) and adjunctive pain agents is (are) associated with shorter LOS or readmission?
 Shorter LOS when acetaminophen PO and IV, alvimopan, and lidocaine patch (p < 0.01) and famotidine (p<0.05) are used. Pregabalin was associated with longer LOS (p<0.01). Lower 7-day readmit when gabapentin is not used (p<0.05).
20.
Which anesthesia type(s) is (are)
associated with a shorter LOS or
readmission?
 Shorter LOS when TAP block with long-acting local anesthetic (p<0.05) were not used. Lower 30-day readmit when ketamine continuous infusion (p<0.01), liposomal bupivacaine and dexmedetomidine (p <0.05) are not used.
Procedure-related effects
21.
Which anatomical surgical site
location(s) is (are) associated with a shorter LOS or lower readmission?
 Procedures including the appendix had the highest LOS and the lowest 7- and 30-day readmission rates of all procedures and combinations. Procedures including the cecum had the lowest LOS. Procedures including the transverse colon and small intestine had the highest 7-day readmission rates, and those including the descending colon and sigmoid had the highest 30-day readmission rates. For LOS, procedures involving the transverse, small intestine, and rectum had significant variability. There was no difference in 7- and 30-day readmission for any colonic location.
22.
Which surgical technique(s) is (are)
associated with a shorter LOS or lower readmission?
 Laparoscopic procedures had the lowest LOS with manual procedure having the highest 7-day readmission rate and robotic having the highest 30-day readmission rate as compared to open procedures. Open manual procedures had the lowest 7-day and similar 30-day readmission rates compared to laparoscopic. Converted to open from laparoscopic had the highest 30-day readmission rate and a comparable LOS to open manual.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Alerts
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated