Key result
The ERAS protocol significantly reduced extubation time (7.2 vs 10.9 hours, p=0.001), perioperative blood loss, and intensive care unit length of stay compared to the standard protocol in CABG patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction.
Why the study?
The application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in cardiac surgery has been increasing, but data comparing ERAS with standard care in patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction undergoing CABG were needed.
Does the ERAS protocol reduce extubation time and length of stay in patients with low LVEF undergoing CABG?
Observational (n=100)
No
Does the ERAS protocol reduce extubation time and length of stay in patients with low LVEF undergoing CABG?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.2% vs 10.9%
p-value: p=0.001
Implementation of an ERAS protocol in patients with low LVEF undergoing CABG is feasible and significantly reduces extubation time, perioperative bleeding, and ICU length of stay.
Supports ERAS in low-LVEF CABG; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Objectives:The application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in cardiac surgery has been increasing in recent years.The goal of this controlled before-and-after study is to compare the postoperative follow-up periods of patients who had low left ventricular ejection fraction and were operated on for coronary artery bypass grafting using the ERAS protocol and the standard protocol (CABG).Methods: Controlled before-and-after study.A single hospital-based study.Perioperative data from 50 consecutive patients who used the standard protocol (preERAS) were matched with data from 50 consecutive patients in the prospective group (postERAS) which consisted of 50 consecutive patients.Patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction were detected in both groups.Results: Patient demographics, operation and cross-clamp durations, cross-clamp and CPB, amount of perioperative bleeding, time of extubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital, and complications were all recorded and compared between groups.The time of extubation was statistically significantly earlier in the posters group (7.2±2.2 h vs. 10.9±6.0 h, p=0.001).Perioperative blood loss was statistically significantly lower in the postERAS group than in the preERAS group (359±56.9 vs. 392±75.8cc respectively, p=0.028).The patients under posters protocol stayed statistically importantly lower in the intensive care unit (2.1±0.5 days vs. 2.4±0.8days, respectively p=0.002). Conclusion:The ERAS pathway was found to be feasible in patients and was associated with shorter extubation time, less perioperative bleeding, and a shorter stay in the intensive care unit and hospital.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
İpek Yakın Düzyol (2023) conducted an observational in Coronary artery bypass grafting with low left ventricular ejection fraction (n=100). Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol vs. Standard protocol was evaluated on Extubation time (hours) (p=0.001). The ERAS protocol significantly reduced extubation time (7.2 vs 10.9 hours, p=0.001), perioperative blood loss, and intensive care unit length of stay compared to the standard protocol in CABG patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: