Adequacy of oral intakes after cardiac surgery within an ERAS pathway: A prospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2019 Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery (ERACS) guidelines presented perioperative recommendations to optimize treatment for patients undergoing cardiac surgery (CS). However, the guidelines have not established postoperative nutrition recommendations. Limited studies have analyzed oral intakes after CS, but to our knowledge, none have done so in an ERACS pathway. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the adequacy of postoperative oral intakes, including adherence to oral nutrition supplements (ONSs). METHODS: This was an observational prospective study. Postoperative oral intakes were analyzed from postoperative day (POD) 1 to 4, using direct observation of meal plates provided by the hospital. ONSs consumption was evaluated from POD2 to POD4. Adherence to other ERACS recommendations, including nutrition optimization before surgery, was recorded. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were included in this study. Nutrition optimization before CS was offered to three (7%) patients. Forty-one (95%) patients resumed oral intakes on POD1. Mean oral calorie and protein intakes from POD2 to POD4 were 1088 ± 437 kcal and 0.8 ± 0.3 g/kg, respectively; however, 17 (41%) patients had calorie and protein intakes ≥70% of their estimated requirements. On POD2, ONSs consumption contributed 35% ± 19% and 38% ± 20% of calorie and protein intake, respectively. There was a significant decrease in ONSs consumption starting on POD3. CONCLUSION: Within an ERACS pathway and with the contribution of ONSs, 41% of patients achieved sufficient oral intakes within the first 4 days after CS. The optimization of ONSs adherence on postoperative oral intakes should be further studied.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".