Enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery and its impact on outcomes: A systematic review

Background and Aim: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are a series of perioperative interventions well-established in improving the care and outcomes of patients. With recent emergence of studies on its implementation in cardiac surgery, this paper represents the first systematic review on current evidence of ERAS efficacy in this field. Methods: Two reviewers independently searched through Pubmed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Embase and Scopus. Comparative studies with controls that described the implementation of ERAS in all types of cardiac operations from 2001 to 2020 were included. Data extracted included patient demographics, components of ERAS protocol described, types of cardiac surgery, and postoperative outcomes. Results: In the final analysis, nine studies were included, of which there were one randomized controlled trial (RCT), one quasi-experiment and seven retrospective/prospective studies. Significant improvement in hospital and ICU length of stay, as well as reduction in postoperative opioid consumption were demonstrated. No increase in postoperative complications were reported. Conclusion: ERAS in cardiac surgery has shown to be potentially safe and effective in improving certain postoperative outcomes. However, the evidence is limited by the lack of high-quality RCTs. We also found the lack of practice of class 1 recommended interventions set forth by the ERAS Cardiac Society. Furthermore, majority of studies only evaluated the immediate postoperative outcomes of patients, and not the long-term outcomes. RCTs that fully implement measures recommended by the ERAS Cardiac Society, with assessments on both immediate and long-term outcomes, are warranted.

Automated summary

This study is the first systematic review on the efficacy of ERAS in cardiac surgery, showing significant improvements in hospital stay, ICU stay, and postoperative opioid consumption. However, the evidence is limited by the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials.