Key result
ERAS for minimally invasive heart valve surgery proves safe but fails to reduce hospital stay.
Why the study?
Does an Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol reduce in-hospital stay and improve physical performance in patients undergoing minimally invasive heart valve surgery?
RCT (n=201)
randomized
Does an Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol reduce in-hospital stay and improve physical performance in patients undergoing minimally invasive heart valve surgery?
An ERAS protocol in minimally invasive heart valve surgery did not significantly reduce 1-year cardiovascular hospital stay, though it was feasible despite an unexpected increase in postoperative atrial fibrillation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ERAS is feasible and safe in minimally invasive valve surgery but does not shorten hospital stay; challenges LOS reduction seen in other surgical settings.
OBJECTIVES: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are patient-centred, interprofessional perioperative care models aimed at reducing hospital stays, complications, healthcare costs, and improving patient satisfaction. Evidence for ERAS in cardiac surgery is scarce; therefore, we aimed to assess its efficacy and safety in minimally invasive heart valve surgery (MIHS). METHODS: Interdisciplinary Perioperative Care in Minimally Invasive Heart Valve Surgery (INCREASE) is a randomized-controlled trial that compares ERAS with standard care in MIHS. The intervention group (IG) received ERAS-based treatment; the control group (CG) standard care. Co-primary end-points were in-hospital stay for cardiovascular reasons within 1 year postoperatively (superiority hypothesis) and physical performance (6-minute walk test [6MWT]) at discharge (non-inferiority hypothesis). Superiority hypothesis was tested primarily in surgically treated patients (modified intention to treat population), while non-inferiority hypothesis was tested in per protocol population. RESULTS: In total, 201 patients scheduled for MIHS were randomized (IG: 101; CG: 100). Total weighted in-hospital stay within 1 year was non-significantly shorter in the IG (adjusted mean difference -2.7 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-6.3, 0.9), 1-sided P = .07). Sensitivity analyses favoured the IG (adjusted ratio 0.71, 95% CI, 0.6, 0.85). For 6MWT, adjusted mean difference was -14%, 95% CI (-43%, 15%) exceeding the non-inferiority margin of -15% (1-sided P = .48). Without baseline adjustment, 6MWT values revealed a mean difference between groups of -1%, 95% CI (-10%, 8%), reaching non-inferiority of the IG. Safety outcomes were comparable with the exception of an unexpected higher rate of post-operative atrial fibrillation in patients randomized to ERAS. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS is feasible and safe in MIHS. The trial did not demonstrate a reduction in length of hospital stay during the first postoperative year in the population studied. Exploratory analyses suggest that further evaluation of ERAS concepts is justified.
Petersen et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in minimally invasive heart valve surgery (n=201). Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol vs. standard care was evaluated on in-hospital stay for cardiovascular reasons within 1 year postoperatively (MD -2.7 days, 95% CI -6.3, 0.9, p=0.07). An ERAS protocol in minimally invasive heart valve surgery did not significantly reduce in-hospital stay within 1 year compared to standard care (adjusted MD -2.7 days; 95% CI -6.3 to 0.9; P=0.07).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: