Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33743698›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Economic impact of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in minimally invasive cardiac surgery.

Johannes Petersen, Benjamin Kloth, Johanna Konertz, Jens Kubitz, Leonie Schulte-Uentrop, Gesche Ketels, Hermann Reichenspurner, Evaldas Girdauskas

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04977362 (Interdisciplinary and Cross-sectoral Perioperative Care Model in the Cardiac Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04977362 nacompletednot on this map

Interdisciplinary and Cross-sectoral Perioperative Care Model in the Cardiac Surgery: Implementation in the Setting of Minimally-invasive Heart Valve Surgery (INCREASE)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfRan2021 to 2024Enrolled201ConditionsHeart Valve DiseasesArmsEnhanced Recovery After Surgery, Treatment as Usual
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Fast-Track Extubation After Cardiac Surgery: A Narrative Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Johannes Petersen *Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. joh.petersen@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3415-3385
Benjamin Kloth *Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Johanna KonertzDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Jens KubitzDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Leonie Schulte-UentropDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Gesche KetelsPhysiotherapy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Hermann ReichenspurnerDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Evaldas GirdauskasDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DEHAW Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) is a multidisciplinary and integrative approach with the goal of optimizing the postoperative recovery. We aimed to analyze the economic impact of a newly established ERAS protocol in minimally invasive heart valve surgery at our institution.

methodsERAS protocol was implemented in 61 consecutive patients who were referred for elective minimally-invasive aortic or mitral valve surgery, between February 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019 (ERAS-group). Another 69 patients who underwent elective minimally-invasive heart valve surgery during the same time period were managed according to the hospital standards (Control-group). A detailed cost comparison analysis was carried out from a hospital perspective using a micro-costing approach.

resultsThe total in-hospital stay was significantly shorter in the ERAS-group compared to the Control-group (6.1 ± 2.6 vs 7.7 ± 3.8 days; p = 0.008) resulting in significant cost savings of €1087.2 per patient (p = 0.003). Due to the intensified physiotherapy in the ERAS protocol, the costs for physiotherapy were €94.3 higher compared to the Control-group (p < 0.001). The total costs in the ERAS cohort were €11,200.0 ± 3029.6/patient compared to € 13,109.8 ± 4527.5/patient in the Control-Group resulting in cost savings of €1909.8 patient due to the implementation of the ERAS protocol (p = 0.006).

conclusionImplementation of an ERAS-protocol in minimally-invasive cardiac surgery can be carried out safely with a fast postoperative recovery of the patient. ERAS results in a financial benefit of up to €1909 per patient and therefore will play a key role in modern cardiac surgery in the near future.

Indexed as

Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryElective Surgical ProceduresHumansLength of StayMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PeriodCost analysissEnhanced recovery after surgeryERASMinimally invasive cardiac surgeryPerioperative care

Identifiers

PMID33743698
PMCPMC7981978
OpenAlexW3138975851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.