Engelman, Daniel T.

Abstract Perioperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) remains a significant complication in adult cardiac surgery, contributing to substantial morbidity, prolonged intensive care, and increased mortality. Its incidence is expected to rise further due to the evolving complexity of referred surgical patients, often characterised by advanced age, multiple comorbidities, challenging anatomy, and impaired haemodynamics. Despite advances in pharmacological and perioperative care, outcomes for high-risk patients have not shown significant improvement, prompting interest in temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) as a proactive strategy. This Expert Consensus Document from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) presents the first dedicated guidance on the pre-emptive use of tMCS in high-risk adult cardiac surgical patients. Developed by a multidisciplinary task force, it emphasises structured risk stratification, early initiation, and individualised device management informed by interdisciplinary Heart Team discussions. The document proposes clinical pathways for patient selection, defines criteria for tMCS initiation, and provides practical algorithms for various scenarios, including advanced heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and post-cardiotomy LCOS. It reviews the current evidence on available tMCS devices, such as intra-aortic balloon pumps, microaxial flow pumps, veno-arterial extracorporeal life support and hybrid strategies, and addresses perioperative care, intensive care unit protocols, ethical considerations, as well as informed consent and support withdrawal. Despite promising results, substantial knowledge gaps remain, including long-term outcome data, device selection criteria, and cost-effectiveness analyses. This consensus aims to support clinical decision-making, standardise practice, and stimulate research to improve outcomes in a growing population of high-risk surgical patients.

Abstract Background Previous meta‐analyses combining randomized and observational evidence in cardiac surgery have shown positive impact of enhanced recovery protocols after surgery (ERAS) on postoperative outcomes. However, definitive data based on randomized studies are missing, and the entirety of the ERAS measures and pathway, as recently systematized in guidelines and consensus statements, have not been captured in the published studies. The available literature actually focuses on “ERAS‐like” protocols or only limited number of ERAS measures. This study aims at analyzing all randomized studies applying ERAS‐like protocols in cardiac surgery for perioperative outcomes. Methods A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ERAS‐like with standard protocols of perioperative care was performed (PROSPERO registration CRD42021283765). PRISMA guidelines were used for abstracting and assessing data. Results Thirteen single center RCTs ( N = 1704, 850 in ERAS‐like protocol and 854 in the standard care group) were selected. The most common procedures were surgical revascularization (66.3%) and valvular surgery (24.9%). No difference was found in the incidence of inhospital mortality between the ERAS and standard treatment group (risk ratio [RR] 0.61 [0.31; 1.20], p = 0.15). ERAS was associated with reduced intensive care unit (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.57, p < 0.01) and hospital stay (SMD −0.23, p < 0.01) and reduced rates of overall complications when compared to the standard protocol (RR 0.60, p < 0.01) driven by the reduction in stroke (RR 0.29 [0.13; 0.62], p < 0.01). A significant heterogeneity in terms of the elements of the ERAS protocol included in the studies was observed. Conclusions ERAS‐like protocols have no impact on short‐term survival after cardiac surgery but allows for a faster hospital discharge while potentially reducing surgical complications. However, this study highlights a significant nonadherence and heterogeneity to the entirety of ERAS protocols warranting further RCTs in this field including a greater number of elements of the framework.