↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Fast-track cardiac care for adult cardiac surgical patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
274 Mendeley
Title
Fast-track cardiac care for adult cardiac surgical patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003587.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wai-Tat Wong, Veronica KW Lai, Yee Eot Chee, Anna Lee

Abstract

Fast-track cardiac care is a complex intervention involving several components of care during cardiac anaesthesia and in the postoperative period, with the ultimate aim of early extubation after surgery, to reduce length of stay in the intensive care unit and in the hospital. Safe and effective fast-track cardiac care may reduce hospital costs. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, updated in 2012 and updated now in 2016. To determine the safety and effectiveness of fast-track cardiac care compared with conventional (not fast-track) care in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Fast-track cardiac care intervention includes administration of low-dose opioid-based general anaesthesia or use of a time-directed extubation protocol, or both. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 2012 to May 2015), Embase (January 2012 to May 2015), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; January 2012 to May 2015) and the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (January 2012 to May 2015), along with reference lists of articles, to identify additional trials. We applied no language restrictions. We included all randomized controlled trials of adult cardiac surgical patients (coronary artery bypass grafts, aortic valve replacement, mitral valve replacement) that compared fast-track cardiac care and conventional (not fast-track) care groups. We focused on the following fast-track interventions, which were designed for early extubation after surgery: administration of low-dose opioid-based general anaesthesia during cardiac surgery and use of a time-directed extubation protocol after surgery. The primary outcome was risk of mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, reintubation within 24 hours of surgery, time to extubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and in the hospital, quality of life after surgery and hospital costs. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted study data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We calculated a Peto odds ratio (OR) for risk of mortality and used a random-effects model to report risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for all secondary outcomes. We included 28 trials (4438 participants) in the updated review. We considered most participants to be at low to moderate risk of death after surgery. We assessed two studies as having low risk of bias and 11 studies high risk of bias. Investigators reported no differences in risk of mortality within the first year after surgery between low-dose versus high-dose opioid-based general anaesthesia groups (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.12; eight trials, 1994 participants, low level of evidence) and between a time-directed extubation protocol versus usual care (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; 10 trials, 1802 participants, low level of evidence).Researchers noted no significant differences between low-dose and high-dose opioid-based anaesthesia groups in the following postoperative complications: myocardial infarction (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.99; eight trials, 1683 participants, low level of evidence), stroke (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.78; five trials, 562 participants, low level of evidence) and tracheal reintubation (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.27; five trials, 594 participants, low level of evidence).Comparisons with usual care revealed no significant differences in the risk of postoperative complications associated with a time-directed extubation protocol: myocardial infarction (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.31; eight trials, 1378 participants, low level of evidence), stroke (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.16; 11 trials, 1646 participants, low level of evidence) and tracheal reintubation (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.41; 12 trials, 1261 participants, low level of evidence).Although levels of heterogeneity were high, low-dose opioid anaesthesia was associated with reduced time to extubation (reduction of 4.3 to 10.5 hours, 14 trials, 2486 participants, low level of evidence) and length of stay in the intensive care unit (reduction of 0.4 to 7.0 hours, 12 trials, 1394 participants, low level of evidence). Use of a time-directed extubation protocol was associated with reduced time to extubation (reduction of 3.7 to 8.8 hours, 16 trials, 2024 participants, low level of evidence) and length of stay in the intensive care unit (reduction of 3.9 to 10.5 hours, 13 trials, 1888 participants, low level of evidence). However, these two fast-track care interventions were not associated with reduced total length of stay in the hospital (low level of evidence). Low-dose opioid-based general anaesthesia and time-directed extubation protocols for fast-track interventions have risks of mortality and major postoperative complications similar to those of conventional (not fast-track) care, and therefore appear to be safe for use in patients considered to be at low to moderate risk. These fast-track interventions reduced time to extubation and shortened length of stay in the intensive care unit but did not reduce length of stay in the hospital.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 274 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 273 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 15%
Researcher 37 14%
Student > Bachelor 34 12%
Other 25 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 9%
Other 47 17%
Unknown 65 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Psychology 6 2%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 72 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2020.
All research outputs
#4,866,748
of 17,362,547 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,355
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,853
of 271,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,362,547 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.