Enhanced recovery pathway versus standard care in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy.

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare outcomes after video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy or segmentectomy before and after introduction of an enhanced recovery program.

Methods: Data from 600 patients undergoing video-assisted lobectomy or segmentectomy between April 2014 and January 2017 were analyzed. A comparative analysis was performed between patients undergoing operation before (365 patients) and after (235 patients) the start of the enhanced recovery program. The incidence of cardiopulmonary complications and 30-day and 90-day mortality, postoperative length of stay, and 30-day and 90-day hospital readmission rates were evaluated. Risk-adjusted cardiopulmonary morbidity and 30-day mortality were calculated for each group and compared.

Results: The 2 groups had a similar postoperative length of stay (enhanced recovery pathway median 5 days vs pre-enhanced recovery pathway 4, P = .44), cardiopulmonary complication rates (enhanced recovery pathway 22.6% vs pre-enhanced recovery pathway 22.4%, P = .98), 30-day mortality rates (enhanced recovery pathway 3.8% vs pre-enhanced recovery pathway 2.2%, P = .31), and 90-day mortality rates (enhanced recovery pathway 4.7% vs pre-enhanced recovery pathway 3.0%, P = .37). No differences were noted in terms of 30-day (enhanced recovery pathway 7.2% vs pre-enhanced recovery pathway 7.4%, P = .94) or 90-day readmission rates (enhanced recovery pathway 9.8% vs pre-enhanced recovery pathway 12.3%, P = .34). The risk-adjusted cardiopulmonary morbidity rates were similar in the 2 periods (P = .76), whereas the risk-adjusted 30-day mortality was higher in the enhanced recovery pathway period compared with the pre-enhanced recovery pathway mortality (P = .0004).

Conclusions: We found no benefit conferred by the enhanced recovery program on outcomes such as cardiopulmonary complications, 30- and 90-day mortality, length of stay, and readmissions. Enhanced recovery program elements may be insufficiently different than previous standards of perioperative care to confer detectable benefits in our settings.