Abstract
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the effects of ERAS and conventional programs on short-term outcomes after LDG.
Summary of Background Data:
Currently, the ERAS program is broadly applied in surgical areas. Although several benefits of LDG with the ERAS program have been covered, high-level evidence is still limited, specifically in advanced gastric cancer.
Methods:
The present study was designed as a randomized, multicenter, unblinded trial. The enrollment criteria included histologically confirmed cT2-4aN0-3M0 gastric adenocarcinoma. Postoperative complications, mortality, readmission, medical costs, recovery, and laboratory outcomes were compared between the ERAS and conventional groups.
Results:
Between April 2019 and May 2020, 400 consecutive patients who met the enrollment criteria were enrolled. They were randomly allocated to either the ERAS group (n = 200) or the conventional group (n = 200). After excluding patients who did not undergo surgery or gastrectomy, 370 patients were analyzed. The patient demographic characteristics were not different between the 2 groups. The conventional group had a significantly longer allowed day of discharge and postoperative hospital stay (6.96 vs 5.83 days, P < 0.001; 8.85 vs 7.27 days, P < 0.001); a longer time to first flatus, liquid intake and ambulation (3.37 vs 2.52 days, P < 0.001; 3.09 vs 1.13 days, P < 0.001; 2.85 vs 1.38 days, P < 0.001, respectively); and higher medical costs (6826 vs 6328 $, P = 0.027) than the ERAS group. Additionally, patients in the ERAS group were more likely to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy earlier (29 vs 32 days, P = 0.035). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications or in the mortality or readmission rates. Regarding laboratory outcomes, the procalcitonin and C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day 3 were significantly lower and the hemoglobin levels on postoperative day 5 were significantly higher in the ERAS group than in the conventional group.
Conclusion:
The ERAS program provides a faster recovery, a shorter postoperative hospitalization length, and lower medical costs after LDG without increasing complication and readmission rates. Moreover, enhanced recovery in the ERAS group enables early initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy.
Keywords: advanced gastric cancer, conventional care, enhanced recovery after surgery, laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, short-term outcomes
Globally, gastric cancer (GC) is the fifth most common cancer, and its cancer-related mortality ranks third.1 Among GC cases, advanced gastric cancer (AGC) accounts for the majority in China.2 The diagnosis, treatment, and survival data of GC have improved dramatically over recent decades due to the introduction of new surgical techniques, chemotherapeutics, and targeted drugs.3,4 A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) versus open distal gastrectomy (KLASS-02) showed that compared with open distal gastrectomy patients, LDG patients had a faster recovery, fewer complications, and less pain.5 Although LDG has been generally accepted, GC surgery remains a high-risk procedure that is significantly associated with surgical stress responses, complications, and mortality.6,7
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been accepted as a standard surgical perioperative management program, and it has also developed rapidly in the field of GC.8 ERAS refers to the adoption of a series of optimization measures to reduce stress and complications and speed up the recovery of patients during the perioperative period through multidisciplinary cooperation. Several gastrectomy studies from single medical centers using the ERAS program for GC have been reported in China, Korea, and Japan.9–12 A review of RCTs and observational studies comparing ERAS versus conventional care after gastrectomy showed that ERAS reduced postoperative hospital stay, medical costs and surgical stress, and optimized recovery without increasing postoperative morbidity.13 The formulation of ERAS guidelines after gastrectomy standardized is used in perioperative care in 2014.14 Currently, the ERAS program is accepted by the majority of patients with GC in East Asian countries.9–13
Emerging evidence indicates that the ERAS program can affect prognosis after colorectal surgery and elective orthopedic surgery.15–17 In addition, a retrospective study showed that the ERAS program improved the 5-year overall survival (OS) of patients with GC, especially those with AGC.18 The mechanism behind this phenomenon may be related not only to the reduction of complications and surgical stress responses but also to changes in the immune response leading to higher rates of recurrence and metastasis.19–22 However, there are still a lack of RCTs studying whether ERAS can increase the survival of patients with AGC undergoing LDG.
Based on this background, the Shandong Gastrointestinal Surgery Study Group designed a multicenter, randomized, unblinded controlled trial to compare the short-term outcomes and long-term prognoses of ERAS and conventional care in LDG for patients with AGC. This paper is an early result concentrating on short-term outcomes, such as complications, mortality, postoperative recovery, and inflammatory indexes.
METHODS
Design, Patients, and Randomization
This study was designed as a multicenter, randomized, unblinded control trial comparing the short-term outcomes and oncologic safety of ERAS and conventional care in LDG (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, CHiCTR1900022438), and the program used in this RCT was reported previously.23 The primary endpoints were 3-year OS and disease-free survival. The secondary endpoints were complications, mortality, postoperative recovery, and medical costs. The exploratory results were changes in perioperative inflammatory and immune responses (leukocytes, neutrophil percentage, C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and interleukin (IL)-6). The trial program was approved by the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University Ethics Committee, and all participants signed informed consent.
Eligible participants were between 18 and 80 years of age and had pathologically proven gastric adenocarcinoma with a clinical stage of T2-4aN0-3M0. The detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in the published trial program (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Eligibility Criteria for Enrolling Patients
| Inclusion |
| (1) patient's age between 18 and 80 years; |
| (2) histologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma; |
| (3) tumor of cT2∼4aN0∼3M0; |
| (4) tumor can be resected by distal gastrectomy in curative intention; |
| (5) ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; |
| (6) ASA score of class I to III; |
| (7) patient agreed to participate in this trial through informed consent. |
| Exclusion |
| (1) other malignant tumors within 5 years; |
| (2) history of previous gastric resection; |
| (3) distant metastasis found during the operation; |
| (4) severe or uncontrolled medical diseases and infections found at the same time; |
| (5) use of opioid analgesics or hormones within 7 d before the operation; |
| (6) severe or uncontrollable mental illness; |
| (7) history of gastric cancer treatment by endoscopic resection, chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy; |
| (8) participation and treatment with anti-cancer drugs in other clinical trials. |
ASA indicates American Society of Anesthesiology; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.
Eligible patients were randomized to the ERAS or conventional care group at a 1:1 ratio before the operation (Fig. 1). The data collectors were separate from those who conducted the eligibility evaluation and recruitment of patients, and they performed the randomization with a list of randomly ordered treatment identifiers generated by a permuted block design using SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., North Carolina, USA). Until patients had been formally assigned to their group, the order of assignment was hidden from the surgeon who registered the patient. After randomization, the surgeons immediately informed the anesthesiologists, nurses, and patients of the group assignments to carry out the different types of perioperative care. Although it was not possible to blind the doctors and patients, the radiologists, data manager, and pathologists were not aware of the program received by the patients.
FIGURE 1.
CONSORT flow diagram of patient enrollment and randomization.
Surgical Quality Evaluation
To ensure surgical quality in the RCT, we conducted a rigorous evaluation of the surgeon's surgical expertise. In brief, each surgeon independently performed more than 100 laparoscopic gastrectomy procedures. At least 100 surgeries are performed by the surgeon's team each year. In addition to meeting the above conditions, surgeons submitted 6 LDGs with D2 lymphadenectomy unedited videos, and each video was recognized by 5 blinded evaluation experts; eventually, 13 surgeons from 13 hospitals were eligible. After starting the RCT, unedited videos and intraoperative photos of the surgical areas in LDG were collected and censored. The expert committee evaluated the surgical procedures of surgeons and, if necessary, provided surgical support to surgeons.
Surgical Procedure and Perioperative Care
First, we explored the abdominal organs and then performed standard LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy and total omentectomy. In both groups, the extents of gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy were based on the Japanese GC treatment guidelines.24 The type of reconstruction was determined by the tumor location and surgeon's preference (Billroth I/II or Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy). According to their own experience, surgeons could choose extracorporeal or intracorporeal methods and stapling instruments or hand sewing methods for anastomosis, but extracorporeal anastomosis using a minilaparotomy was recommended. If complications (bleeding, invasion of adjacent organs, or organ injury) occurred before laparoscopic D2 lymph node dissection was completed or if the length of the incision exceeded 10 cm, the surgery was defined convert to open.
Before surgery, gastroscopy, ultrasonic gastroscopy, chest, total abdominal, and pelvic computed tomography (CT) was performed to verify the location and size of the cancer. In addition, positron emission tomography-CT is recommended for patients with suspected distant metastasis, and patients with distant metastasis were excluded according to the assessments of 2 seasoned radiologists. We did not routinely perform diagnostic laparoscopy with washings to stage and rule out occult metastatic disease before operation in this study. However, for all patients, we asked for taking abdominal flushing water during the operation for exfoliative cytological examination. Upper abdominal CT angiography was performed to accurately determine the distribution of perigastric blood vessels, avoid intraoperative bleeding and vascular injury caused by vascular variation, and guide lymphadenectomy.25 The cardiopulmonary function of patients was strictly evaluated through cardiac ultrasound and pulmonary function tests to ensure that the patients could tolerate laparoscopic surgery.
During the operation, we followed GC treatment guidelines; performed LDG and D2 lymphadenectomy; selected the appropriate reconstruction method; and recorded the intraoperative complications, blood loss, and operation time.
After the operation, all adverse events were closely observed and treated. The measures taken and the drugs used in response to the adverse events were recorded and described on the case report form. The detailed postoperative management program was previously described (Table 2).23 Laboratory examinations were performed preoperatively and 1, 3, and 5 days postoperatively. The measurements included blood routine, kidney function, liver function, electrolyte, CRP, IL-6, procalcitonin, and TNF-α tests. For patients with pathological stage II cancer or above, S-1 capsule combined with oxaliplatin was recommended for 6–8 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy.
TABLE 2.
Perioperative Pathway Management for Gastric Cancer
| Program clauses | ERAS Group | Conventional Group |
| Preoperative | ||
| Health education, exercise advice∗ | Yes | Yes |
| Organ function evaluation∗ | Yes | Yes |
| Prerehabilitation treatment∗ | Yes | No |
| MDT, clinical decision making∗ | Yes | Yes |
| Nutritional assessment, intervention∗ | Yes | Yes |
| Intestinal preparation | Enteral nutrition | No |
| No mechanical bowel preparation | Mechanical intestinal preparation | |
| Fasting and abstinence from drinking∗ | Fasting 6 h before operation | Fasting and drinking for 6 h before operation |
| 2-h oral glucose infusion 200 mL | ||
| Intraoperative | ||
| Intraoperative safety check (checklist)∗ | Yes | Yes |
| Target-oriented liquid management∗ | Yes | No |
| Local anesthesia in the deep incision | Local anesthesia (0.5% ropivacaine) | No |
| Prevention of antibiotic use | Yes | Yes |
| Surgical incision∗ | Small midline (<8 cm) incision | Small midline (<8 cm) incision |
| Precision surgery∗ | Laparoscopic surgery | Laparoscopic surgery |
| Anesthesia mode∗ | General anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia (T7–T9)† | General anesthesia |
| Intraoperative heat preservation‡ | Yes | Yes |
| Postoperative | ||
| Urinary catheter | Remove within 24 h | Routine indwelling for 1–3 d |
| Abdominal drainage tube | Do not place or remove early after operation as far as possible | Remove it before discharge§ |
| Gastric tube | No | Retention for 1–3 d|| |
| Early bedside activity∗ | Start soberly and plan your activities | 2–3 d after operation |
| Postoperative analgesia∗ | Multimodal analgesia¶ | Opioids# |
| Target-oriented liquid management∗ | Yes | No |
| Prevention of deep venous thrombosis | Basic, physical, and drug prevention | Basic and drug prevention |
| Early EN after operation∗ | Sequential EN treatment after awakening | Gradually start EN after exhaust |
Core provisions of perioperative ERAS pathway management.
Dose/drug: ropivacaine 500 mg + lidocaine 400 mg and liquid velocity: 2 mL/h.
Heat preservation measures: preheating fluid replenishment, thermal blanket, heater.
Extubation indication: the drainage fluid is light red or clear, 24 h less than 20 mL, and no pancreatic and lymphatic fistula.
The criteria of removal of nasogastric tube: recovery of intestinal peristalsis, anal exhaust, and oral clear fluid.
Multimodal analgesia: POD1–2 patient controlled epidural analgesia (lidocaine + ropivacaine), POD3–5 regular oral paracetamol 0.65 g q8 h 50 mg when the VAS ≥4 flurbiprofen 50 mg is injected intravenously.
Opioids: POD1–2 tramadol 50 mg q8 h, when the VAS ≥4 tramadol 50 mg is injected intravenously (dose ≤400 mg/d).
NSAID indicates nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; EN, enteral nutrition; ERAS, enhanced recovery after surgery.
Definition of Surgical Complications and Mortality
The operation-related complications that occurred within the first 30 postoperative days (PODs) were defined as early complications. Complications included intraoperative and postoperative complications. Briefly, postoperative complications included wound and pulmonary infections, gastroparesis, anastomotic leakage, lymphatic leakage, pancreatic fistulas, intra-abdominal bleeding, intraluminal bleeding, intra-abdominal abscesses, deep vein thrombosis, ileus, cholecystitis and cerebrovascular, cardiac, hepatic, and renal complications. The severity of postoperative complications was assessed in accordance with the Clavien-Dindo classification.26
Admission for surgery-related complications within 30 days after discharge was defined as readmission. Any death during hospitalization or related to surgery-related complications within 30 PODs was defined as mortality.
Sample Size and Statistical Analysis
This study adopted the design of a noninferiority test, and the calculation of sample size was based on the following assumptions and historical data. The study found that the 3-year OS rate of patients who underwent radical gastrectomy under the ERAS program from 2011 to 2014 was approximately 65%.18 Given that patient selection required 10 months, the median follow-up time will be 3 years; therefore, the noninferiority threshold was set to 1.33, according to a 1:1 random ratio. Assuming a significance level of α = 0.05 (bilateral) and test efficiency of 1-β = 80%, revealing that at least 178 patients would be necessary per group. A target enrollment of 400 patients was chosen to allow for a dropout rate of approximately 10%.
Categorical variables are described as numbers and percentages and were compared between groups using Pearson chi-square test or Fisher exact test. Continuous variables are described as the mean ± standard deviation. Nonnormally distributed continuous data were compared with medians and interquartile ranges, and Student's t-test was used for normally distributed continuous variables. Significance was defined as P < 0.05. All statistical tests were 2-sided and performed using SPSS software version 24.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL).
RESULTS
Safety Analysis of Early Complications
After a total of 212 patients were enrolled in the RCT, the expert committee conducted the safety evaluation in January 2020. The rate of surgery-related complications was 16.4% in the ERAS group and 21.8% in the conventional group (P = 0.162); therefore, the expert committee decided to continue this RCT until the full enrollment of patients was achieved (n = 400).
Demographics Characteristics
Figure 1 shows the CONSORT flow diagram of patient enrollment and randomization. From April 2019 to March 2020, 400 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to each group. After excluding 14 patients in the ERAS group and 16 patients in the conventional group, 186 patients in the ERAS group, and 184 patients in the conventional group were analyzed for outcomes.
The patient demographics and baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology scores, nutrition risk screening 2002, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, comorbidities, histologic type, clinical T and N stages, and previous abdominal operations, are shown in Table 3. The characteristics of laparoscopic gastrectomy were well balanced between the ERAS and conventional groups. The completion rates of the protocol for each items were all greater than 95%, apart from anesthesia mode was 92.0% (171/186) for the ERAS group. Happily, the completion rates for the conventional group were near 100%.
TABLE 3.
Patient Demographics and Baseline Characteristics
| Variables | ERAS (n = 186) | Conventional (n = 184) | P-value |
| Age, yr ± SD | 58.3 ± 10.5 | 58.6 ± 10.9 | 0.305 |
| Sex | 0.685 | ||
| Male, n (%) | 129 (69.4) | 124 (67.4) | |
| Female, n (%) | 57 (30.6) | 60 (32.6) | |
| BMI, kg/m2 ± SD | 23.6 ± 3.2 | 23.7 ± 3.3 | 0.351 |
| ASA score | 0.804 | ||
| I, n (%) | 98 (50.0) | 93 (50.5) | |
| II, n (%) | 74 (39.8) | 79 (42.9) | |
| III, n (%) | 14 (7.5) | 12 (6.5) | |
| NRS 2002 | 0.757 | ||
| <3, n (%) | 89 (47.8) | 91 (49.5) | |
| >=3, n (%) | 97 (52.2) | 93 (50.5) | |
| ECOG | 0.609 | ||
| 0, n (%) | 121 (65.1) | 115 (62.5) | |
| 1, n (%) | 65 (34.9) | 69 (37.5) | |
| Comorbidity | 0.686 | ||
| None, n (%) | 112 (60.2) | 107 (58.2) | |
| One or more, n (%) | 74 (39.8) | 77 (41.8) | |
| Histologic type | 0.651 | ||
| Well, n (%) | 14 (7.5) | 14 (7.6) | |
| Moderate, n (%) | 56 (30.1) | 60 (32.6) | |
| Poor, n (%) | 116 (62.4) | 110 (59.8) | |
| cT stage∗ | 0.761 | ||
| cT2, n (%) | 61 (32.8) | 54 (29.3) | |
| cT3, n (%) | 40 (21.5) | 43 (23.4) | |
| cT4a, n (%) | 85 (45.7) | 87 (47.3) | |
| cN stage∗ | 0.759 | ||
| cN0, n (%) | 35 (18.8) | 27 (14.7) | |
| cN1, n (%) | 38 (20.4) | 38 (20.7) | |
| cN2, n (%) | 39 (21.0) | 41 (25.5) | |
| cN3, n (%) | 74 (39.8) | 78 (41.8) | |
| Previous abdominal operation, n (%) | 28 (15.1) | 22 (12.0) | 0.384 |
Pathologic stage according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer, seventh edition.
ASA indicates American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; ERAS, enhanced recovery after surgery; NRS, nutrition risk screening, SD, standard deviation.
Surgical, Pathologic, and Postoperative Recovery Outcomes
As shown in Table 4, the time to first flatus and time to first liquid intake were significantly shorter in the ERAS group than in the conventional group (2.52 vs 3.37 days, P < 0.001; 1.13 vs 3.09, P < 0.001); moreover, the time to ambulation was significantly shorter in the ERAS group than in the conventional group (1.38 vs 2.85 days, P < 0.001). The allowed day of discharge and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the ERAS group than in the conventional group (5.83 vs 6.96 days, P < 0.001; 7.27 vs 8.85, P < 0.001). Readmission rates of ERAS and conventional group were revealed as 4.8% (n = 9) and 4.3% (n = 8) (P = 0.821). Causes of readmission were 2 gastroparesis, 1 pulmonary infection, 1 pancreatic fistula, 1 intraluminal bleeding, 2 ileus, 1 kidney dysfunction, 1 cerebrovascular in the ERAS group, and 4 gastroparesis, 1 pulmonary infection, 1 hematochezia, 1 ileus, 1 poor heart function in the conventional group.
TABLE 4.
Surgical, Pathologic, and Recovery Outcomes for ERAS and Conventional Group
| Variables | ERAS (n = 186) | Conventional (n = 184) | P-value |
| Operation time (min ± SD) | 204.12 ± 45.81 | 208.41 ± 44.56 | 0.242 |
| Estimated blood loss (mL ± SD) | 88.54 ± 37.15 | 92.82 ± 40.17 | 0.207 |
| Extent of resection | 0.470 | ||
| Total gastrectomy, n (%) | 10 (5.4) | 7 (3.8) | |
| Distal gastrectomy, n (%) | 176 (94.6) | 177 (96.2) | |
| Operation method | 0.262 | ||
| Total laparoscopic gastrectomy | 24 (12.9) | 17 (9.2) | |
| Laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy | 162 (87.1) | 167 (90.8) | |
| Combined operation | 8 (4.3) | 7 (3.8) | 0.808 |
| LN dissection | 0.442 | ||
| <D2 | 9 (4.8) | 6 (3.3) | |
| D2 | 177 (95.2) | 178 (96.7) | |
| Reconstruction | 0.570 | ||
| Billroth-I, n (%) | 7 (3.8) | 11 (6.0) | |
| Billroth-II, n (%) | 54 (29.0) | 49 (26.6) | |
| Roux-en-Y, n (%) | 125 (67.2) | 124 (67.4) | |
| Intraoperative transfusion, n (%) | 8 (4.3) | 11 (6.0) | 0.465 |
| Length of incision (cm ± SD) | 7.18 ± 1.45 | 7.27 ± 1.51 | 0.482 |
| Retrieved LN number (mean ± SD) | 32.76 ± 13.08 | 32.81 ± 13.54 | 0.617 |
| Retrieved LNs <15, n (%) | 7 (3.8) | 5 (2.7) | 0.570 |
| Positive margin, n (%) | 2 (1.1) | 1 (0.5) | 0.569 |
| Exfoliated cancer cells positive, n (%) | 15 (8.1) | 18 (9.8) | 0.562 |
| pT stage | 0.445 | ||
| T1, n (%) | 24 (12.9) | 15 (8.2) | |
| T2, n (%) | 41 (22.0) | 35 (19.0) | |
| T3, n (%) | 44 (23.7) | 43 (23.4) | |
| T4a, n (%) | 71 (38.2) | 84 (45.7) | |
| T4b, n (%) | 6 (3.2) | 7 (3.8) | |
| pN stage | 0.582 | ||
| N0, n (%) | 37 (19.9) | 29 (15.8) | |
| N1, n (%) | 41 (22.0) | 35 (19.0) | |
| N2, n (%) | 46 (24.7) | 44 (23.9) | |
| N3a, n (%) | 42 (22.6) | 48 (26.1) | |
| N3b, n (%) | 20 (10.8) | 28 (15.2) | |
| pTNM stage | 0.564 | ||
| I, n (%) | 41 (22.0) | 34 (18.5) | |
| II, n (%) | 77 (41.4) | 74 (40.2) | |
| III, n (%) | 68 (36.6) | 76 (41.3) | |
| Time to first flatus (d ± SD) | 2.52 ± 0.83 | 3.37 ± 1.28 | <0.001 |
| Time to first liquid intake (d ± SD) | 1.13 ± 0.51 | 3.09 ± 1.14 | <0.001 |
| Time to ambulation (d ± SD) | 1.38 ± 0.58 | 2.85 ± 1.42 | <0.001 |
| Remove the drainage tube (d ± SD) | 2.36 ± 1.91 | 4.17 ± 1.28 | <0.001 |
| Allowed day of discharge (d ± SD) | 5.83 ± 1.42 | 6.96 ± 1.63 | <0.001 |
| Postoperative hospital stay (d ± SD) | 7.27 ± 1.83 | 8.85 ± 2.18 | <0.001 |
| 30-d readmission, n (%) | 9 (4.8) | 8 (4.3) | 0.821 |
| Surgical procedure-adjuvant chemotherapy interval, median (IQR), d | 29 (26–32) | 32 (29–40) | 0.035 |
| Medical cost (dollars ± SD) | 6328 ± 925 | 6826 ± 1174 | 0.027 |
ERAS indicates enhanced recovery after surgery; IQR, interquartile range, SD, standard deviation.
The operation time, estimated blood loss, extent of resection, lymph node (LN) dissection, reconstruction, intraoperative transfusion, length of incision, retrieved LN number, retrieved LNs <15, positive margin, pathological tumor (pT), pathological node (pN), and pTNM stage were not significantly different between the groups. There was no significant difference in the exfoliated cancer cells positive rate between the 2 groups (8.1% vs 9.8%, P = 0.562). In the ERAS group, 8 patients underwent combined surgery due to cancer invasion to adjacent organs (n = 6) and surgical technical problems (n = 2). Additionally, patients in the ERAS group were more likely to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy earlier (29 [26–32] vs 32 [29–40] days, P = 0.035). Mean medical cost was 6328 $ in the ERAS group and 6826 $ in the conventional group (P = 0.027).
Surgical Complications and Mortality
Regarding surgical morbidity, the overall complications were not significantly different between the groups (16.7% vs 21.2% in ERAS and conventional group, P = 0.266, Table 5). Intraoperative complications were also not different between the groups (4.8% vs 5.4%, P = 0.796); notably, 22 patients in the ERAS group and 29 patients in the conventional group had postoperative complications, with no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (11.8% vs 15.8%, P = 0.273). According to the Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications, the distribution of severity was similar between the 2 groups. The mortality rate was 0 in the ERAS group and 0.5% in the conventional group (P = 0.314). The reasons for mortality were duodenal leakage with abdominal infection.
TABLE 5.
Postoperative Complications and Mortality
| Variables | ERAS Group (n = 186) | Conventional Group (n = 184) | P-value |
| Intraoperative complication, n (%) | 9 (4.8) | 10 (5.4) | 0.796 |
| Postoperative complication, n (%) | 22 (11.8) | 29 (15.8) | 0.273 |
| Wound infection, n (%) | 2 (1.1) | 2 (1.1) | 1.000 |
| Pulmonary, n (%) | 6 (3.2) | 10 (5.4) | 0.296 |
| Gastroparesis, n (%) | 2 (1.1) | 4 (2.2) | 0.403 |
| Anastomotic leakage, n (%) | 2 (1.1) | 3 (1.6) | 0.644 |
| Lymphatic leakage, n (%) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.5) | 0.314 |
| Pancreatic fistula, n (%) | 1 (0.5) | 2 (1.1) | 0.556 |
| Intra-abdominal bleeding, n (%) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1.000 |
| Intraluminal bleeding, n (%) | 3 (1.6) | 2 (1.1) | 0.661 |
| Intra-abdominal abscess, n (%) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 1.000 |
| Deep vein thrombosis, n (%) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | — |
| Ileus, n (%) | 2 (1.1) | 1 (0.5) | 0.569 |
| Cerebrovascular, n (%) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0.319 |
| Cardiac, n (%) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.5) | 0.314 |
| Cholecystitis, n (%) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | — |
| Hepatic, n (%) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.0) | — |
| Renal, n (%) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0.319 |
| Overall morbidity, n (%) | 31 (16.7) | 39 (21.2) | 0.266 |
| Mortality, n (%) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.5) | 0.314 |
| Clavien-Dindo classification | |||
| I, n (%) | 6 (3.2) | 5 (2.7) | 0.773 |
| II, n (%) | 17 (9.1) | 21 (11.4) | 0.471 |
| III, n (%) | 6 (3.2) | 7 (4.9) | 0.763 |
| IV, n (%) | 2 (1.1) | 3 (1.6) | 0.644 |
| V, n (%) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.5) | 0.314 |
ERAS indicates enhanced recovery after surgery.
Laboratory Outcomes
Supplemental Table 1 shows the changes in laboratory outcomes from blood samples before and after the operation. Regarding laboratory outcomes, the hemoglobin level on POD5 was significantly higher in the ERAS group (11.67 vs 11.30 g/dL P = 0.036). However, the CRP and procalcitonin levels on the third POD were significantly lower in the ERAS group (78.35 vs 90.61 mg/L P < 0.001; 0.58 vs 0.63 ug/L P = 0.025, respectively). White blood cell and amylase levels were similar between the groups.
DISCUSSION
This is the first and largest multicenter RCT study to evaluate the impact of the ERAS program on patient outcomes after laparoscopic gastrectomy. The short-term outcomes of this RCT show that ERAS can be safely performed by experienced surgical centers in patients who have received LDG and has the benefits of enhancing recovery and reducing medical costs, but it does not increase the rate of postoperative complications or readmission compared with the conventional care.
In our study, minimally invasive surgery, as part of the ERAS program, was performed in almost the same way in both groups, excluding possible variations in the procedure itself. At present, some prospective trials in Japan, Korea, and China have evaluated the safety and oncological feasibility of LAG for early or AGC, and the results have provided high-level evidence of the safety and feasibility of LAG in AGC.3–5 Notably, according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, patients in both groups were given adequate analgesia and early thrombus prevention although the treatment methods were not exactly the same.23 The ERAS group were treated with basic prevention combined with antithrombotic pressure pump and low molecular weight heparin prevention. However, the conventional group did not use antithrombotic pressure pump.
In this study, the patient demographic characteristics of the 2 groups were similar, and the same surgical procedure was used, which led to no difference in the surgical or pathological results. However, the ERAS group had a faster postoperative recovery and a shorter hospital stay, and these results were closely related to the ERAS program. ERAS is a multimode perioperative management program designed to achieve rapid postoperative rehabilitation, including health education, prerehabilitation, preoperative nutritional assessment and intervention, target-oriented liquid management, anesthesia mode, multimodal analgesia, early nutrition, early activity, and the removal of abdominal drainage tubes and catheters as soon as possible.27
The time to first flatus is often used as a simple index to evaluate the recovery of intestinal function.13 In this study, the time to first flatus was significantly shortened in ERAS group, which implies that ERAS management leads to faster recovery of bowel function. Preoperative carbohydrates may be an important item in the ERAS items, although debatable.27 The guidelines of the American Association of Anesthesiologists allow to intake clear fluid 2 hours preoperatively28 which does not increase the volume of the stomach, and aspiration.29 Surgical stress and preoperative fasting are thought to lead to insulin resistance, which may lead to hyperglycemia and may increase postoperative complications.30 The traditional views have been that early postoperative feeding increase the risk of postoperative anastomotic leakage and pneumonia, which was not supported by our study. Epidural patient-controlled analgesia can effectively control pain31 and enhance patients’ tolerance to mobilization and diet.32 Thus, a meta-analysis of thoracic epidural patient-controlled analgesia for laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) showed significantly faster bowel mobilization and less pain.33
The results of this RCT were similar to those previous reports that an ERAS program significantly shortened the allowed day of discharge and postoperative hospital stay.8–13 This may be attributed to the rapid recovery of intestinal function and physical strength. In our study, the postoperative hospital stay was not evaluated alone because the postoperative hospital stay was greatly affected by external factors, so the allowed day of discharge may be more accurate.
Although the complication rate in the ERAS group decreased by 4.5%, the overall complication rates in the 2 groups showed no significant difference; however, we believe this result is of great significance. Our LDG was standardized by experienced surgeons and was strictly evaluated before the trial, so we believe that the implementation of the same surgical operation, and adherence to the ERAS program can reduce the incidence of complications.
In the laboratory examinations, CRP and procalcitonin were significantly lower on POD 3 in ERAS than in conventional group, supporting that ERAS reduces various surgical stress responses. Unfortunately, some of the participating centers did not measure IL-6 and TNF-α, hindering more detailed statistical analyses.
Many previous RCTs and retrospective studies with small sample sizes have suggested that the ERAS program can improve the short-term outcomes of patients with GC.34,35 However, this study is the first to verify these benefits in a large multicenter RCT designed for AGC patients. In particular, enhanced recovery and lower complication after LG for the patients with AGC might allow earlier adjuvant chemotherapy. In this context, our retrospective study showed that an ERAS program may increase the survival of patients with GC.8,18
This RCT has several limitations. First of all, total blinding is a challenging goal to reach because the distinction in perioperative care is readily observable. Also, the surgeon's subjective consciousness may lead to bias in the results, for example, doctors subconsciously allow patients in the ERAS group to be discharged as soon as possible, thus affecting the postoperative hospital stay. Secondly, we did not include patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or high-risk patients with comorbidities. It is unknown whether the ERAS program can be applied to these patients. Thirdly, this RCT still had abdominal drains placed in the ERAS group, which may cause surgery-related complications and lengthen hospitalization time.36 Finally, we did not reveal the survival data of Shandong Gastrointestinal Surgery Study Group 1901 which might confirm the final impact of LDG for AGC.
Despite the global success of ERAS program, many challenges lie ahead27 with numerous ERAS factors to be further explored. In conclusion, an ERAS program provided faster recovery and less postoperative hospital stay and medical costs after LDG without increasing complication and readmission rates. Moreover, the ERAS program might offer advantages over conventional care in terms of an earlier start of adjuvant chemotherapy.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Professor Henrik Kehlet for his support in the study design and training of investigators, co-investigators for their effort in conducting this study at the participating centers, and all the pathologists who examined the specimen.
Footnotes
Y.Z. and H.K. contributed equally to this work.
Author contributions: Yanbing Zhou, Henrik Kehlet, and Yulong Tian conceived and designed the study; Yulong Tian and Shougen Cao drafted the manuscript; Zhaojian Niu, Zequn Li, Haitao Jiang, Xiaodong Liu completed data acquisition, data management, and statistical analysis; Leping Li, Qingsi He, Lijian Xia, Lixin Jiang, Yinlu Ding, Xinjian Wang, Hao Wang, Weizheng Mao, Xizeng Hui, Yiran Shi, Huanhu Zhang, and Xianqun Chu revised manuscript critically for important intellectual content; all authors have agreed to be responsible for all aspects of the work.
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Supplemental digital content is available for this article.
REFERENCES
- 1.Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68:394–424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Yang L, Zheng R, Wang N, et al. Incidence and mortality of stomach cancer in China, 2014. Chin J Cancer Res 2018; 30:291–298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Yu J, Huang C, Sun Y, et al. Effect of laparoscopic vs open distal gastrectomy on 3-year disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: the CLASS-01 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019; 321:1983–1992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Bang YJ, Van Cutsem E, Feyereislova A, et al. Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 376:687–697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lee H-J, Hyung WJ, Yang H-K, et al. Short-term outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy to open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer (KLASS-02-RCT). Ann Surg 2019; 270:983–991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hu Y, Huang C, Sun Y, et al. Morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic versus open D2 distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:1350–1357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Inaki N, Etoh T, Ohyama T, et al. A multi-institutional, prospective, phase II feasibility study of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for locally advanced gastric cancer (JLSSG0901). World J Surg 2015; 39:2734–2741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Aarts M-A, Rotstein OD, Pearsall EA, et al. Postoperative ERAS interventions have the greatest impact on optimal recovery: experience with implementation of ERAS across multiple hospitals. Ann Surg 2018; 267:992–997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Yamada T, Hayashi T, Cho H, et al. Usefulness of enhanced recovery after surgery programme as compared with conventional perioperative care in gastric surgery. Gastric Cancer 2012; 15:34–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Tanaka R, Lee S-W, Kawai M, et al. Programme for enhanced recovery after surgery improves short-term outcomes for patients with gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial. Gastric Cancer 2017; 20:861–871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wang D, Kong Y, Zhong B, et al. Fast-track surgery improves postoperative recovery in patients with gastric cancer: a randomized comparison with conventional postoperative care. J Gastrointest Surg 2010; 14:620–627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Jeong O, Kim HG. Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in perioperative management of gastric cancer surgery: a nationwide survey in Korea. J Gastric Cancer 2019; 19:72–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wee IJY, Syn NL-X, Shabbir A, et al. Enhanced recovery versus conventional care in gastric cancer surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. Gastric Cancer 2019; 22:423–434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Mortensen K, Nilsson M, Slim K, et al. Consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. Br J Surg 2014; 101:1209–1229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Gustafsson UO, Oppelstrup H, Thorell A, et al. Adherence to the ERAS programme is associated with 5-year survival after colorectal cancer surgery: a retrospective cohort study. World J Surg 2016; 40:1741–1747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Savaridas T, Serrano-Pedraza I, Khan SK, et al. Reduced medium-term mortality following primary total hip and knee arthroplasty with an enhanced recovery program. A study of 4,500 consecutive procedures. Acta Orthop 2013; 84:40–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Pisarska M, Torbicz G, Gajewska N, et al. Compliance with the ERAS programme and 3-year survival after laparoscopic surgery for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. World J Surg 2019; 43:2552–2560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Yang FZ, Wang H, Wang DS, et al. The effect of perioperative ERAS pathway management on short-and long-term outcomes of gastric cancer patients. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2020; 100:922–927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Khuri SF, Henderson WG, DePalma RG, et al. Determinants of long-term survival after major surgery and the adverse effect of postoperative complications. Ann Surg 2005; 242:326–341. discussion 341–343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Holmgren L, O’Reilly MS, Folkman J. Dormancy of micrometastases: balanced proliferation and apoptosis in the presence of angiogenesis suppression. Nat Med 1995; 1:149–153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Oosterling SJ, van der Bij GJ, Meijer GA, et al. Macrophages direct tumour histology and clinical outcome in a colon cancer model. J Pathol 2005; 207:147–155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Mantovani A, Allavena P, Sica A, et al. Cancer-related inflammation. Nature 2008; 454:436–444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Tian Y, Cao S, Li L, et al. Effects of perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery pathway management versus traditional management on the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of distal gastric cancer: study programme for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2020; 21:369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4). Gastric Cancer 2017; 20:1–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Shen S, Cao S, Jiang H, et al. The short-term outcomes of gastric cancer patients based on a proposal for a novel classification of perigastric arteries. J Gastrointest Surg 2019; 24:2471–2481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Dindo D, Daniel N, Clavien PA. 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. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kehlet H. Enhanced postoperative recovery: good from afar, but far from good? Anaesthesia 2020; 75: (Suppl 1): e54–e61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee. Practice guidelines for preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration: application to healthy patients undergoing elective procedures: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists task force on preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration. Anesthesiology 2017; 126:376–393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Awad S, Blackshaw PE, Wright JW, et al. A randomized crossover study of the effects of glutamine and lipid on the gastric emptying time of a preoperative carbohydrate drink. Clin Nutr 2011; 30:165–171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Helminen H, Viitanen H, Sajanti J. Effect of preoperative intravenous carbohydrate loading on preoperative discomfort in elective surgery patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009; 26:123–127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Zhu Z, Wang C, Xu C, et al. Influence of patient-controlled epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia on postoperative pain control and recovery after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a prospective randomized trial. Gastric Cancer 2013; 16:193–200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Carli F, Mayo N, Klubien K, et al. Epidural analgesia enhances functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life after colonic surgery: results of a randomized trial. Anesthesiology 2002; 97:540–549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Khan SA, Khokhar HA, Nasr ARH, et al. Effect of epidural analgesia on bowel function in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2013; 27:2581–2591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Mingjie X, Luyao Z, Ze T, et al. Laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for resectable advanced gastric cancer within enhanced recovery programs: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2017; 27:959–964. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Chen HJ, Xin JL, Cai L, et al. Preliminary experience of fast-track surgery combined with laparoscopy-assisted radical distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16:1830–1839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Petrowsky H, Demartines N, Rousson V, et al. Evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Ann Surg 2004; 240:1074–1084. discussion 1084–1085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.