Enhanced recovery after cesarean protocol versus traditional protocol in elective cesarean section: A prospective observational study

Sunanda Gupta, Apoorva Gupta, Aditi Baghel, Karuna Sharma, S. Choudhary, Vidhu Choudhary
{"title":"Enhanced recovery after cesarean protocol versus traditional protocol in elective cesarean section: A prospective observational study","authors":"Sunanda Gupta, Apoorva Gupta, Aditi Baghel, Karuna Sharma, S. Choudhary, Vidhu Choudhary","doi":"10.4103/joacc.joacc_16_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Enhanced recovery programs result in reduced morbidity in terms of effective pain control, reduced length of stay (LOS), and an earlier return to normal activities. This study has been conducted to compare Enhanced recovery after caesarean (ERAC) protocol to traditional care of cesarean section (CS) in our institute. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing elective CS were subjected to ERAC protocol (Group A; n = 100) for first six months and traditional protocol (Group B; n = 100) for next six months. Primary outcome was comparison of total duration of stay (readiness to discharge) in the hospital, whereas secondary objectives were intraoperative hemodynamic control and requirement of vasopressor, comparison of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and requirement of analgesics in 24 hrs, barriers to implementation of ERAC components, urinary retention and need of recatheterization and any adverse events perioperatively. Results: Significant reduction in LOS or readiness for discharge was found in Group A; 2.85 ± 0.5 vs 5.25 ± 0.61 hrs in Group B (p < 0.0001). Episodes of hypotension and requirement of phenylephrine was significantly more in Group B. (p < 0.0001) VAS scores in Group A were significantly less postoperatively with significant reduction in consumption of rescue analgesic in 24 hrs. (p < 0.001) Components of ERAC protocol were implemented successfully with significant difference in time of ambulation, decatheterization, and resumption of oral feed postoperatively. Conclusion: Implementation of ERAC results in significant reduction in LOS in hospital with better pain relief and reduced postoperative opioid requirement following cesarean delivery.","PeriodicalId":16611,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacc.joacc_16_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Enhanced recovery programs result in reduced morbidity in terms of effective pain control, reduced length of stay (LOS), and an earlier return to normal activities. This study has been conducted to compare Enhanced recovery after caesarean (ERAC) protocol to traditional care of cesarean section (CS) in our institute. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing elective CS were subjected to ERAC protocol (Group A; n = 100) for first six months and traditional protocol (Group B; n = 100) for next six months. Primary outcome was comparison of total duration of stay (readiness to discharge) in the hospital, whereas secondary objectives were intraoperative hemodynamic control and requirement of vasopressor, comparison of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and requirement of analgesics in 24 hrs, barriers to implementation of ERAC components, urinary retention and need of recatheterization and any adverse events perioperatively. Results: Significant reduction in LOS or readiness for discharge was found in Group A; 2.85 ± 0.5 vs 5.25 ± 0.61 hrs in Group B (p < 0.0001). Episodes of hypotension and requirement of phenylephrine was significantly more in Group B. (p < 0.0001) VAS scores in Group A were significantly less postoperatively with significant reduction in consumption of rescue analgesic in 24 hrs. (p < 0.001) Components of ERAC protocol were implemented successfully with significant difference in time of ambulation, decatheterization, and resumption of oral feed postoperatively. Conclusion: Implementation of ERAC results in significant reduction in LOS in hospital with better pain relief and reduced postoperative opioid requirement following cesarean delivery.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
选择性剖宫产术与传统剖宫产术相比,剖宫产术后恢复能力增强:一项前瞻性观察研究
背景:增强的康复方案在有效控制疼痛、缩短住院时间(LOS)和更早恢复正常活动方面降低了发病率。本研究旨在比较我院剖宫产术后增强恢复(Enhanced recovery after caesarean section, ERAC)方案与传统剖宫产(caesarean section, CS)护理方案。材料和方法:选择性CS患者接受ERAC方案(A组;n = 100)前6个月和传统方案(B组;N = 100),在接下来的六个月。主要结果是住院总时间(出院准备)的比较,而次要目标是术中血流动力学控制和血管加压剂的需求,视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分和24小时内镇痛药需求的比较,ERAC组件实施的障碍,尿潴留和再导管的需要以及围手术期的任何不良事件。结果:A组患者LOS或出院准备率显著降低;B组为2.85±0.5 vs 5.25±0.61 (p < 0.0001)。A组术后VAS评分明显低于b组(p < 0.0001),且24 h内抢救镇痛药的使用明显减少。(p < 0.001) ERAC方案的组成部分成功实施,术后活动时间、脱导管时间和恢复口服喂养时间均有显著差异。结论:实施ERAC可显著降低剖宫产术后LOS发生率,减轻疼痛,减少术后阿片类药物需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊最新文献
To study maternal hypotension, side-effects and fetal acid-base balance during cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia using prophylactic infusion doses of 25 and 50 μg/Min phenylephrine Takotsubo cardiomyopathy in pregnancy: A focused review Comparative evaluation of two doses of phenylephrine infusion to prevent intra-operative nausea and vomiting during elective obstetric spinal anesthesia Carbetocin: Are we ready for a paradigm shift? Evaluation of perfusion index as a screening tool for prediction of hypotension and shivering in cesarean section
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1