Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37607006›Full record

ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2023

Ultrafast track versus conventional fast track in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Manuel Carnero-Alcázar, Rosa Beltrao-Sial, Lourdes Montero-Cruces, Miguel López-Vyzcaino, Daniel Pérez-Camargo, Rubén Sánchez, Javier Cobiella-Carnicer, David Fernández-Velasco, Luis C Maroto-Castellanos

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Assessing the Safety, Feasibility, and Clinical Outcomes of a Fast-Track Strategy in Open Cardiac Surgery.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025
    Observational
  5. Review
  6. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Manuel Carnero-AlcázarDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5045-5765
Rosa Beltrao-SialDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Lourdes Montero-CrucesDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Miguel López-VyzcainoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Daniel Pérez-CamargoDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3576-5268
Rubén SánchezDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Javier Cobiella-CarnicerDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
David Fernández-VelascoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Luis C Maroto-CastellanosDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
Hospital Clínico San Carlos · ESUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aimed at comparing the risk of major adverse events and length of stay between patients undergoing ultrafast track and conventional fast track.

methodsRetrospective cohort study adjusted by propensity score matching, including patients operated on between March 2020 and December 2022 of any of the following: coronary, valve surgery or ascending aorta surgery. Patients were divided into 2 groups: ultrafast track: extubation in the operating room and fast track: extubation attempted in the first 6 postoperative hours. The primary objective was to compare the risk of the combined event death, lung respiratory outcomes (reintubation, mechanical ventilation longer than 24 h or pneumonia), or acute renal failure.

resultsA total of 1126 patients were included. A total of 579 (51.4%) were extubated in the operating room. A total of 331 pairs were available after matching by propensity score. The risk of the primary outcome was 11.8% (n = 39) in the fast-track group and 6.3% (n = 21) in the ultrafast-track group (P = 0.013), mostly driven by lung adverse events (6.9% vs 2.4%, P = 0.011) while no significant differences were detected in the risk of death (2.4% vs 1.8%, P = 0.77) or acute renal failure (8% vs 6.3%, P = 0.56). The risk of myocardial infarction was higher in the fast-track group (2.7% vs 0%, P = 0.039). The median length of stay in the postoperative intensive care unit was longer in the fast-track group [24.7 h (interquartile range 21.5; 62.9) vs 23.5 h (interquartile range 22; 46), P = 0.015].

conclusionsIn patients undergoing cardiac surgery, extubation in the operating room is associated to a lower risk of postoperative complications (mostly driven by lung adverse events) and length of stay in intensive care unit as compared to fast track.

Indexed as

Cardiac surgeryFast trackPostoperative outcomes

Identifiers

PMID37607006
PMCPMC10460483
OpenAlexW4386046172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.