ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
An implementation manual for an interprofessional enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in cardiac surgery following international established frameworks.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing Evidence-Based, Phase-Specific Multimodal Analgesia for Total Joint Arthroplasty: An Interprofessional Review for Nursing Practice and Management.Journal of nursing management · 2026Review
- Fast-Track Extubation After Cardiac Surgery: A Narrative Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Perceptions and experiences of healthcare professionals in implementing an ERAS protocol for minimally invasive heart valve surgery: a qualitative analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols represent a paradigm shift in perioperative care, aim to optimize patient outcomes and accelerate recovery. This manual presents findings from implementing the INCREASE study, a bicentric prospective randomized controlled trial focusing on ERAS in minimally invasive heart valve surgery. Methods: Utilizing the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), the study examined contextual factors, intervention components, and implementation strategies. Results: Key findings from the CFIR analysis revealed critical domains influencing implementation success. These included innovation characteristics, external and internal settings, and individual dynamics. The study showcased ERAS's adaptability to diverse healthcare systems, emphasizing its potential for successful integration across varying contexts. Furthermore, the importance of interprofessional collaboration emerged as a foundation of practical implementation, fostering teamwork, communication, and patient-centered care. Utilizing the TIDieR framework, this manual comprehensively describes ERAS intervention components, detailing preoperative counseling, intraoperative management, and postoperative care strategies. The manual underscored the importance of tailored, patient-centered approaches, highlighting the role of an academic ERAS nurse, early mobilization, and psychosomatic interventions in promoting optimal recovery outcomes. Discussion: In conclusion, the INCREASE study provided valuable insights for creating an implementation manual for ERAS in cardiac surgery, emphasizing adaptability, collaboration, and ongoing evaluation as key drivers of successful implementation. These findings have broad implications for improving patient care outcomes and advancing perioperative practices in cardiac surgery settings.
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.