ArticleJTCVS open2023
Diversifying cardiac intensive care unit models: Successful example of an operating surgeon-led unit.
Article in JTCVS open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: The intensivist-led cardiovascular intensive care unit model is the standard of care in cardiac surgery. This study examines whether a cardiovascular intensive care unit model that uses operating cardiac surgeons, cardiothoracic surgery residents, and advanced practice providers is associated with comparable outcomes. Methods: This is a single-institution review of the first 400 cardiac surgery patients admitted to an operating surgeon-led cardiovascular intensive care unit from 2020 to 2022. Inclusion criteria are elective status and operations managed by both cardiovascular intensive care unit models (aortic operations, valve operations, coronary operations, septal myectomy). Patients from the surgeon-led cardiovascular intensive care unit were exact matched by operation type and 1:1 propensity score matched with controls from the traditional cardiovascular intensive care unit using a logistic regression model that included age, sex, preoperative mortality risk, incision type, and use of cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest. Primary outcome was total postoperative length of stay. Secondary outcomes included postoperative intensive care unit length of stay, 30-day mortality, 30-day Society of Thoracic Surgeons-defined morbidity (permanent stroke, renal failure, cardiac reoperation, prolonged intubation, deep sternal infection), packed red cell transfusions, and vasopressor use. Outcomes between the 2 groups were compared using chi-square, Fisher exact test, or 2-sample Results: A total of 400 patients from the surgeon-led cardiovascular intensive care unit (mean age 61.2 ± 12.8 years, 131 female patients [33%], 346 patients [86.5%] with European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II <2%) and their matched controls were included. The most common operations across both units were coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 318, 39.8%) and mitral valve repair or replacement (n = 238, 29.8%). Approximately half of the operations were performed via sternotomy (n = 462, 57.8%). There were 3 (0.2%) in-hospital deaths, and 47 patients (5.9%) had a 30-day complication. The total length of stay was significantly shorter for the surgeon-led cardiovascular intensive care unit patients (6.3 vs 7.0 days, Conclusions: In its first 2 years, the surgeon-led cardiovascular intensive care unit demonstrated comparable outcomes to the traditional cardiovascular intensive care unit with significant improvements in total length of stay, postoperative transfusions in the cardiovascular intensive care unit, and vasopressor use. This early success exemplifies how an operating surgeon-led cardiovascular intensive care unit can provide similar outcomes to the standard-of-care model for patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.