Different approach, similar outcomes: the impact of surgical access routes in minimally invasive cardiac surgery on enhanced recovery after surgery

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) evidence-based protocols for perioperative care can lead to improvements in clinical outcomes and cost savings. This article aims to present consensus recommendations for the optimal perioperative management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. A review of meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, large nonrandomized studies, and reviews was conducted for each protocol element. The quality of the evidence was graded and used to form consensus recommendations for each topic. Development of these recommendations was endorsed by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society.

Our enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery (ERAS Cardiac) program is an evidence-based interdisciplinary process, which has not previously been systematically applied to cardiac surgery in the United States.

The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative outcome obtained in patients undergoing elective aortic valve operation, either through ministernotomy or conventional sternotomy. Between January 1999 and July 2001, 80 consecutive patients undergoing elective aortic valve replacement were randomly divided into two groups: group I (n = 40 patients) undergoing a ministernotomy approach (reversed-C or reversed-L), and group II (n = 40 patients) undergoing conventional sternotomy. The length of skin incision was significantly shorter in group I than in group II (8.2+/-1.3 cm versus 23.7+/-2.6 cm, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in cardiopulmonary bypass duration, associated procedures, or aortic cross-clamping times. Total operating time was 3.7+/-0.46 hours in group I compared with 3.4+/-0.6 hours in group II (p = 0.014). A similar incidence of cardiac, neurologic, infective, and renal complications between groups was found. Mean mediastinal drainage and mean blood transfusions (amount of blood transfused) per patient were greater in group II (p < 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). Twenty-five (62.5%) patients in group II and 15 (37.5%) patients in group I required postoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.04). Mechanical ventilation time was significantly longer in group II (6.2+/-1.8 hours versus 4.4+/-0.9 hours, p = 0.006). Five days after the surgical procedure, spirometric data analysis demonstrated a significantly lower total lung capacity and maximum inspiratory and expiratory pressures in group II compared with group I (p = 0.003, p = 0.007, and p < 0.001, respectively). Our results showed that ministernotomy had not only important cosmetic advantages but also beneficial effects in blood loss and transfusion, postoperative pain, and probably in sternal stability. Ministernotomy also improved recovery of respiratory function and allowed earlier extubation and hospital discharge.