Journal of vascular surgery · 2023
Community-wide feasibility of the Lower Extremity Amputation Protocol amongst vascular amputees.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Matheny Heather, Woo Karen, Siada Sammy, Qumsiyeh Yazen, Aparicio Carolina, Borashan Christian, O'Banion Leigh Ann
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Lower Extremity Amputation Protocol (LEAP) is a multidisciplinary enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for vascular amputees. The objective of this study was to examine feasibility and outcomes of community-wide implementation of LEAP.
METHODS: LEAP was implemented at three safety net hospitals for patients with peripheral artery disease or diabetes requiring major lower extremity amputation. Patients who underwent LEAP (LEAP) were matched 1:1 with retrospective controls (NOLEAP) on hospital location, need for initial guillotine amputation, and final amputation type (above- vs below-knee). Primary endpoint was postoperative hospital length of stay (PO-LOS).
RESULTS: A total of 126 amputees (63 LEAP and 63 NOLEAP) were included with no difference between baseline demographics and co-morbidities between the groups. After matching, both groups had the same prevalence of amputation level (76% below-knee vs 24% above-knee). LEAP patients had shorter duration of postamputation bed rest (P = .003) and were more likely to receive limb protectors (100% vs 40%; P ≤ .001), prosthetic counseling (100% vs 14%; P ≤ .001), perioperative nerve blocks (75% vs 25%; P ≤ .001), and postoperative gabapentin (79% vs 50%; P ≤ .001). Compared with NOLEAP, LEAP patients were more likely to be discharged to an acute rehabilitation facility (70% vs 44%; P = .009) and less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (14% vs 35%; P = .009). The median PO-LOS for the overall cohort was 4 days. LEAP patients had a shorter median PO-LOS (3 [interquartile range, 2-5] vs 5 [interquartile range, 4-9] days; P < .001). On multivariable logistic regression, LEAP decreased the odds of a PO-LOS of ≥4 days by 77% (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.63). Overall, LEAP patients were significantly less likely to have phantom limb pain (5% vs 21%; P = .02) and were more likely to receive a prosthesis (81% vs 40%; P ≤ .001). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, LEAP was associated with an 84% reduction in time to receipt of prosthesis (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.085-0.303; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Community wide implementation of LEAP significantly improved outcomes for vascular amputees demonstrating that utilization of core ERAS principles in vascular patients leads to decreased PO-LOS and improved pain control. LEAP also affords this socioeconomically disadvantaged population a greater opportunity to receive a prosthesis and return to the community as a functional ambulator.
METHODS: LEAP was implemented at three safety net hospitals for patients with peripheral artery disease or diabetes requiring major lower extremity amputation. Patients who underwent LEAP (LEAP) were matched 1:1 with retrospective controls (NOLEAP) on hospital location, need for initial guillotine amputation, and final amputation type (above- vs below-knee). Primary endpoint was postoperative hospital length of stay (PO-LOS).
RESULTS: A total of 126 amputees (63 LEAP and 63 NOLEAP) were included with no difference between baseline demographics and co-morbidities between the groups. After matching, both groups had the same prevalence of amputation level (76% below-knee vs 24% above-knee). LEAP patients had shorter duration of postamputation bed rest (P = .003) and were more likely to receive limb protectors (100% vs 40%; P ≤ .001), prosthetic counseling (100% vs 14%; P ≤ .001), perioperative nerve blocks (75% vs 25%; P ≤ .001), and postoperative gabapentin (79% vs 50%; P ≤ .001). Compared with NOLEAP, LEAP patients were more likely to be discharged to an acute rehabilitation facility (70% vs 44%; P = .009) and less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (14% vs 35%; P = .009). The median PO-LOS for the overall cohort was 4 days. LEAP patients had a shorter median PO-LOS (3 [interquartile range, 2-5] vs 5 [interquartile range, 4-9] days; P < .001). On multivariable logistic regression, LEAP decreased the odds of a PO-LOS of ≥4 days by 77% (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.63). Overall, LEAP patients were significantly less likely to have phantom limb pain (5% vs 21%; P = .02) and were more likely to receive a prosthesis (81% vs 40%; P ≤ .001). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, LEAP was associated with an 84% reduction in time to receipt of prosthesis (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.085-0.303; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Community wide implementation of LEAP significantly improved outcomes for vascular amputees demonstrating that utilization of core ERAS principles in vascular patients leads to decreased PO-LOS and improved pain control. LEAP also affords this socioeconomically disadvantaged population a greater opportunity to receive a prosthesis and return to the community as a functional ambulator.