ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Ultra-fast-track perioperative pathway versus conventional general anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery: a retrospective single-center propensity score-matched study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltra-fast-track anesthesia (UFTA) has been increasingly used in adults undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS), but evidence in elderly patients remains limited. We evaluated the feasibility and clinical outcomes of UFTA compared with conventional general anesthesia (CGA) in elderly patients undergoing MICS.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of patients aged ≥ 65 years who underwent MICS at our center between January 2022 and December 2024. Patients were categorized into a UFTA-based perioperative pathway group, in which extubation was performed in the operating room within 1 h after surgery when predefined criteria were met, and a CGA group, in which extubation occurred in the ICU. The primary endpoint was postoperative length of stay (LOS). Secondary endpoints were: ICU stay duration, duration of inotropic and vasoactive support, time to extubation, major postoperative complications, and 30-day outcomes.
resultsOf the 584 cases that met the inclusion criteria, 430 were successfully matched at a 1:1 ratio, resulting in two well-balanced groups of 215 patients each. In the matched cohort, patients managed with the UFTA-based perioperative pathway had a shorter postoperative LOS (median [IQR], 8 [7–11] vs. 9 [7–12] days; mean ratio 0.889 [95% CI 0.803–0.985]; P = 0.025), shorter ICU stay (26 [22–45] vs. 46 [28.5–72] hours; mean ratio 0.641 [95% CI 0.441–0.933]; P = 0.020), and shorter duration of inotropic and vasoactive support (2 [1–2] vs. 3 [2–4] days; mean ratio 0.570 [95% CI 0.486–0.669]; P < 0.001). Time to extubation was markedly shorter in the UFTA group (10 [5–15] vs. 630 [540–1020] minutes; mean ratio 0.015 [95% CI 0.013–0.018]; P < 0.001). Respiratory insufficiency and delirium were less frequent in the UFTA group, although these secondary complication findings should be interpreted cautiously.
conclusionsIn this propensity score-matched cohort of elderly patients undergoing MICS, the UFTA-based perioperative pathway was feasible and was associated with shorter postoperative LOS and ICU stay, as well as a shorter duration of pharmacologic hemodynamic support. Further prospective multicenter studies with standardized outcome assessment are needed to confirm these findings and to better define appropriate candidates.
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.