In this article, we review the evidence underpinning the broader prehabilitation concept and the target behavioural and lifestyle risk factors including their perioperative impact and evidence for prehabilitation intervention. We also identify principles for delivering prehabilitation in practice, alongside lessons for the perioperative setting from well-established allied interventions; cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation.

SummaryDespite calls for the routine implementation of pre-operative exercise programmes to optimise patient fitness before elective major surgery, there is no practical guidance for providing safe and effective exercise in this specific context. The following clinical guideline was developed following a review of the evidence on the effects of pre-operative exercise interventions. We developed a series of best-practice and, where possible, evidence-based statements to advise on patient care with respect to exercise training in the peri-operative period. These statements cover: patient selection for exercise training in surgical patients; integration of exercise training into multi-modal prehabilitation programmes; and advice on exercise prescription factors and follow-up. Although we acknowledge that further research is needed to identify the optimal exercise prescription in different clinical scenarios, we urge peri-operative teams to make use of these recommendations. Summary of key recommendations1 Pre-operative exercise training should be offered to patients scheduled for major or complex elective surgery with a view to improving their physical fitness and health status and reducing the risk of peri-operative morbidity and mortality. If resources are limited, priority of referral to preoperative exercise training should go to patients who are at increased risk of peri-operative complications, such as those with low cardiorespiratory fitness.2 Pre-operative exercise training should be offered as part of a multi-modal prehabilitation programme that addresses a variety of peri-operative risk factors including cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and anaemia. 3 Healthcare professionals making referrals to a preoperative exercise programme should have basic knowledge about what the programme entails and its potential effects. A pre-operative exercise programme should be presented to the patient by the referring clinician as a fundamental part of their 750

No abstract

Pre-operative intervention to improve general health and readiness for surgery is known as prehabilitation. Modification of risk factors such as physical inactivity, smoking, hazardous alcohol consumption and an unhealthy weight can reduce the risk of peri-operative morbidity and improve patient outcomes. Interventions may need to target multiple risk behaviours. The acceptability to patients is unclear. We explored motivation, confidence and priority for changing health behaviours before surgery for short-term peri-operative health benefits in comparison with long-term general health benefits. A total of 299 participants at three UK hospital Trusts completed a structured questionnaire. We analysed participant baseline characteristics and risk behaviour profiles using independent sample t-tests and odds ratios. Ratings of motivation, confidence and priority were analysed using paired sample t-tests. We identified a substantial prevalence of risk behaviours in this surgical population, and clustering of multiple behaviours in 42.1% of participants. Levels of motivation, confidence and priority for increasing physical activity, weight management and reducing alcohol consumption were higher for peri-operative vs. longer term benefits. There was no difference for smoking cessation, and participants reported lower confidence for achieving this compared with other behaviours. Participants were also more confident than motivated in reducing their alcohol consumption pre-operatively. Overall, confidence ratings were lower than motivation levels in both the short-and long-term. This study identifies both substantial patient desire to modify behaviours for peri-operative benefit and the need for structured pre-operative support. These results provide objective evidence in support of a 'pre-operative teachable moment', and of patients' desire to change behaviours for health benefits in the short term.

SummaryRecognising frailty during pre-operative assessment is important. Frail patients experience higher mortality rates and are less likely to return to baseline functional status following the physiological insult of surgery. We evaluated the association between an initial clinical impression of frailty and all-cause mortality in 392 patients attending our vascular pre-operative assessment clinic. Prevalence of frailty assessed by the initial clinical impression was 30.6% (95% CI 26.0-35.2%). There were 133 deaths in 392 patients over a median follow-up period of 4 years. Using Cox regression, adjusted for age, sex, revised cardiac risk index and surgery (yes/no), the hazard ratio for mortality for frail vs. not-frail was 2.14 (95% CI 1.51-3.05). The time to 20% mortality was 16 months in the frail group and 33 months in the not-frail group. The initial clinical impression is a useful screening tool to identify frail patients in pre-operative assessment.

Optimising health and well-being before elective major surgery via prehabilitation initiatives is important for good postoperative outcomes. In a busy tertiary centre in North East England, the lack of a formal prehabilitation service meant that opportunities were being missed to optimise patients for surgery. This quality improvement project aimed to implement and evaluate a community-based prehabilitation service for people awaiting elective major surgery: PREP-WELL. A multidisciplinary, cross-sector team introduced PREP-WELL in January 2018. PREP-WELL provided comprehensive assessment and management of perioperative risk factors in the weeks before surgery. During a 12-month pilot, patients were referred from five surgical specialties at James Cook University Hospital. Data were collected on participant characteristics, behavioural and health outcomes, intervention acceptability and costs, and process-related factors. By December 2018, 159 referrals had been received, with 75 patients (47%) agreeing to participate. Most participants opted for a supervised programme (72%) and were awaiting vascular (43%) or orthopaedic (35%) surgery. Median programme duration was 8 weeks. The service was delivered as intended with participants providing positive feedback. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL; EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) utility) and functional capacity (6 min walk distance) increased on average from service entry to exit, with mean (95% CI) changes of 0.108 (−0.023 to 0.240) and 35 m (−5 to 76 m), respectively. Further increases in EQ5D utility were observed at 3 months post surgery. Substantially more participants were achieving recommended physical activity levels at exit and 3 months post surgery compared with at entry. The mean cost of the intervention was £405 per patient; £52 per week. The service was successfully implemented within existing preoperative pathways. Most participants were very satisfied and improved their risk profile preoperatively. Funding has been obtained to support service development and expansion for at least 2 more years. During this period, alternative pathways will be developed to facilitate wider access and greater uptake.

SummaryInter-arm differences in blood pressure may confound haemodynamic management in vascular surgery. We evaluated 898 patients in the vascular pre-assessment clinic to determine the prevalence of inter-arm differences in systolic and mean arterial pressure, quantify the consequent risk of clinical error in siting monitoring peri-operatively and evaluate systolic inter-arm difference as a predictor of all-cause mortality (median follow-up 49 months). The prevalence of a systolic inter-arm difference ≥ 15 mmHg was 26% (95% CI 23-29%). The prevalence of an inter-arm mean arterial pressure difference ≥ 10 mmHg was 26% (95% CI 23-29%) and 11% (95% CI 9-13%) for a difference ≥ 15 mmHg. Monitoring could be erroneously sited in an arm reading lower for systolic pressure once in every seven to nine patients. The hazard ratio for a systolic inter-arm difference ≥ 15 mmHg vs < 15 mmHg was 1.03 (95% CI 0.78-1.36, p = 0.84). Large inter-arm blood pressure differences are common in this population, with a high potential for monitoring errors. Systolic inter-arm difference was not associated with medium-term mortality. Observed discrepancy in systolic blood pressure between arms (systolic inter-arm difference) is a controversial clinical feature associated with the severity of underlying systemic atherosclerotic disease. A recently published meta-analysis [1] concluded that the observation of a ≥ 15 mmHg systolic inter-arm difference is a specific, but not sensitive, indicator of peripheral vascular disease, as confirmed by a reduced ankle-brachial pressure index and specifically stenotic subclavian disease demonstrated on angiography. The capacity for discrepancy between arms to confound the management of hypertension and secondary risk modification is acknowledged in current national guidance [2]. Accordingly, the National Institute of Health and Care

Summary The deployment of physician‐led pre‐hospital enhanced care teams capable of critical care interventions at the scene of injury may confer a survival benefit to victims of major trauma. However, the evidence base for this widely adopted model is disputed. Failure to identify a clear survival benefit has been attributed to several factors, including an inherently more severely injured patient group who are attended by these teams. We undertook a novel retrospective analysis of the impact of a regional enhanced care team on observed vs. predicted patient survival based on outcomes recorded by the UK Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN). The null hypothesis of this study was that attendance of an enhanced care team would make no difference to the number of ‘unexpected survivors’. Patients attended by an enhanced care team were more seriously injured. Analysis of Trauma Audit and Research Network patient outcomes did not demonstrate an improved adjusted survival rate for trauma patients who were treated by a physician‐led enhanced care team, but confirmed differences in patient characteristics and severity of injury for those who were attended by the team. We conclude that a further prospective multicentre analysis is warranted. An essential prerequisite for this would be to address the current blind spot in the Trauma Audit and Research Network database – patients who die from trauma before ever reaching hospital. We speculate that early on‐scene critical care may convert this cohort of invisible trauma deaths into patients who might survive to reach hospital. Routine collection of data from these patients is warranted to include them in future studies.