Guidelines for enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery. Consensus document of Spanish Societies of Anesthesia (SEDAR), Cardiovascular Surgery (SECCE) and Perfusionists (AEP). / Vía clínica de recuperación intensificada en cirugía cardiaca. Documento de consenso de la Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor (SEDAR), la Sociedad Española de Cirugía Cardiovascular y Endovascular (SECCE) y la Asociación Española de Perfusionistas (AEP).

The ERAS guidelines are intended to identify, disseminate and promote the implementation of the best, scientific evidence-based actions to decrease variability in clinical practice. The implementation of these practices in the global clinical process will promote better outcomes and the shortening of hospital and critical care unit stays, thereby resulting in a reduction in costs and in greater efficiency. After completing a systematic review at each of the points of the perioperative process in cardiac surgery, recommendations have been developed based on the best scientific evidence currently available with the consensus of the scientific societies involved.

Ability to predict the development of surgical site infection in cardiac surgery using the Australian Clinical Risk Index versus the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance-derived Risk Index.

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a major infectious complication that increases mortality, morbidity, and healthcare costs. There are scores attempting to classify patients for calculating SSI risk. Our objectives were to validate the Australian Clinical Risk Index (ACRI) in a European population after cardiac surgery, comparing it against the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance-derived risk index (NNIS) and analyzing the predictive power of ACRI for SSI in valvular patients. All the patients that who underwent cardiac surgery in a tertiary university hospital between 2011 and 2015 were analyzed. The patients were divided into valvular and coronary groups, excluding mixed patients. The ACRI score was validated in both groups and its ability to predict SSI was compared to the NNIS risk index. We analyzed 1,657 procedures. In the valvular patient group (n: 1119), a correlation between the ACRI score and SSI development (p < 0.05) was found; there was no such correlation with the NNIS index. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.64 (confidence interval [CI] 95%, 0.5-0.7) for ACRI and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.5-0.7) for NNIS. In the coronary group (n: 281), there was a correlation between ACRI and SSI but no between NNIS and SSI. The ACRI AUC was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.5-0.8) and the NNIS AUC was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.4-0.7). The ACRI score has insufficient predictive power, although it predicts SSI development better than the NNIS index, fundamentally in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Further studies analyzing determining factors are needed.