Implementation of enhanced recovery in cardiac surgery: An experimental study with the control group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery protocol is the most recent addition to cardiac treatment. In this paper, we aimed to test the safety and viability of this protocol in our hospital to improve our standard of care. Methods This study was conducted as an experimental study with a historical control at the Maritime Heart Center, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. In order to quantify the success of this protocol, we measured the postoperative Length of Hospital Stay and three intensive care unit variables: time to extubation, time to ambulation, and opioid consumption. In the study, 100 patients were in the Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery group, and 103 patients were used as historic controls-selected by strenuous chart review and selection criteria. Results The primary outcome (Length of Hospital Stay) was reduced from a mean of 8.88 ± 3.50 days in the control group to a mean of 5.13 ± 1.34 days in the Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery group ( p < 0.001). Likewise, we observed a significant reduction in intensive care unit variables: time to extubation was reduced from 10.54 ± 7.83 h in the control group to 6.69 ± 1.63 in the Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery group ( p < 0.01), and time to ambulation was reduced from 36.27 ± 35.21 h in the control group to 9.78 ± 2.03 in the Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery group ( p < 0.01) and opioid consumption was reduced from 50.58 ± 11.93 milligram morphine equivalent in the control group to 11.58 ± 4.43 milligram morphine equivalent in the Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery group ( p < 0.01). Conclusion Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery protocols were seamlessly integrated into selected cardiac surgical patients, contingent on a high level of interprofessional communication and collaboration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".