Implementing ERAS: how we achieved success within an anesthesia department

BMC Anesthesiology

Table 2 Bivariate Comparison of Change in ERAS Measures^a

Outcome Measure	Mean Values			P-Value for Differences
Outcome Measure	Baseline	Intervention	Post Intervention	baseline vs intervention	intervention vs postintervention
Preemptive Analgesia, n (%)	447 (42.2)	728 (85.5)	553 (83.9)	< 0.0001	0.4113
Antiemetics use, n(%)	967 (91.3)	796 (93.4)	603 (91.5)	0.0856	0.1566
Intraop fluid mngt, n(%)	325 (30.7)	392 (46.0)	281 (42.6)	< 0.0001	0.1913
Short acting narcotics (in mcg/kg), mean (std)	2.28 (1.1)	1.86 (1.0)	1.87 (1.0)	< 0.0001	0.7883
Long acting narcotics (in mcg/kg), mean (std)	10.56 (7.4)	9.03 (9.2)	8.90 (6.6)	< 0.0001	0.7532

^aThe above table provides unadjusted comparison of compliance measures between the two periods under study: baseline vs intervention and intervention vs post-intervention. Compared to the baseline period, four of the five metrics showed significant improvement during the intervention period. Moreover, all these improvements were sustained during the post intervention period (there were some marginal changes, but none of them were statistically significant). Use of antiemetics, which had already 91.3% compliance during the baseline period, didn’t show significant movement during the intervention or post-intervention period

ISSN: 1471-2253