ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Feasibility of deescalating postoperative care in enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery.
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 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery for Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery: A Systematic Review of Key Elements and Advancements.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- The impact of comorbidities on surgical outcome and mortality in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Ultra-fast-track anesthesia in cardiac surgery: perioperative outcomes, patient selection, and implementation strategies-a narrative review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- 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 · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) prioritizes faster functional recovery after major surgery. An important aspect of postoperative ERAS is decreasing morbidity and immobility, which can result from prolonged critical care. Using current clinical data, our aim was to analyze whether a six-hour monitoring period after Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery (MICS) might be sufficient to recognize major postoperative complications in a future Fast Track pathway. Additionally, we sought to investigate whether it could be possible to deescalate the setting of postoperative monitoring. Methods: 358 patients received MICS and were deemed suitable for an ERAS protocol between 01/2021 and 03/2023 at our institution. Of these, 297 patients could be successfully extubated on-table, were transferred to IMC or ICU in stable condition and therefore served as study cohort. Outcomes of interest were incidence and timing of Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction requiring revascularization, stroke), bleeding requiring reexploration and Fast Track-associated complications (reintubation and readmission to ICU). Results: Patients' median age was 63 years (IQR 55-70) and 65% were male. 189 (64%) patients received anterolateral mini-thoracotomy, primarily for mitral and/or tricuspid valve surgery ( Conclusions: If MICS patients can be successfully extubated on-table and are hemodynamically stable, major postoperative complications were rare in our single-center experience and primarily occurred after transfer to the ward. Therefore, in well selected MICS patients with uncomplicated intraoperative course, monitoring for six hours, possibly outside of an ICU, followed by transfer to the ward appears to be a feasible theoretical concept without negative impact on patient safety.
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.