nhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal, transdisciplinary care improvement initiative to promote recovery of patients undergoing surgery throughout their entire perioperative journey. 1 These programs aim to reduce complications and promote an earlier return to normal activities. 2,3 The ERAS protocols have been associated with a reduction in overall complications and length of stay of up to 50% compared with conventional perioperative patient management in populations having noncardiac surgery. 4-6 Evidence-based ERAS protocols have been published across multiple surgical specialties. 1 In early studies, the ERAS approach showed promise in cardiac surgery (CS); however, evidence-based protocols have yet to emerge. 7 To address the need for evidence-based ERAS protocols, we formed a registered nonprofit organization (ERAS Cardiac Society) to use an evidence-driven process to develop recommendations for pathways to optimize patient care in CS contexts through collaborative discovery, analysis, expert consensus, and best practices. The ERAS Cardiac Society has a formal collaborative agreement with the ERAS Society. This article reports the first expert-consensus review of evidence-based CS ERAS practices. Methods We followed the 2011 Institute of Medicine Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, using a standardized algorithm that included experts, key questions, subject champions, systematic literature reviews, selection and appraisal of evidence quality, and development of clear consensus recommendations. 8 We minimized repetition of existing guidelines and consensus statements and focused on specific information in the framework of ERAS protocols.

Severe weakness requiring prolonged rehabilitation and abnormal clinical neurologic findings are extremely common in survivors of protracted critical illness. Neurophysiologic evidence of chronic partial denervation of muscle consistent with previous critical illness polyneuropathy is almost invariable and can be found up to 5 yrs after intensive care unit discharge in >90% of these long-stay patients. Evidence of myopathy is unusual. These findings have important implications for the management and rehabilitation of intensive care survivors.

Diastolic dysfunction is common in septic patients and it is associated with mortality. Systolic dysfunction is less common and is not associated with mortality in this group of patients.

The authors propose the ten key points and directions for future research in the field. RV failure (RVF) is frequent in the ICU, magnified by the frequent need for positive pressure ventilation. While no universal definition of RVF is accepted, we propose that RVF may be defined as a state in which the right ventricle is unable to meet the demands for blood flow without excessive use of the Frank-Starling mechanism (i.e. increase in stroke volume associated with increased preload). Both echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring play a central role in the evaluation of RVF in the ICU. Management of RVF includes treatment of the causes, respiratory optimization and hemodynamic support. The administration of fluids is potentially deleterious and unlikely to lead to improvement in cardiac output in the majority of cases. Vasopressors are needed in the setting of shock to restore the systemic pressure and avoid RV ischemia; inotropic drug or inodilator therapies may also be needed. In the most severe cases, recent mechanical circulatory support devices are proposed to unload the RV and improve organ perfusion CONCLUSION: RV function evaluation is key in the critically-ill patients for hemodynamic management, as fluid optimization, vasopressor strategy and respiratory support. RV failure may be diagnosed by the association of different devices and parameters, while echocardiography is crucial.

Introduction: This narrative review focusing on critical care echocardiography (CCE) has been written by a group of experts in the field, with the aim of outlining the state of the art in CCE in the 10 years after its official recognition and definition. Results: In the last 10 years, CCE has become an essential branch of critical care ultrasonography and has gained general acceptance. Its use, both as a diagnostic tool and for hemodynamic monitoring, has increased markedly, influencing contemporary cardiorespiratory management. Recent studies suggest that the use of CCE may have a positive impact on outcomes. CCE may be used in critically ill patients in many different clinical situations, both in their early evaluation of in the emergency department and during intensive care unit (ICU) admission and stay. CCE has also proven its utility in perioperative settings, as well as in the management of mechanical circulatory support. CCE may be performed with very simple diagnostic objectives. This application, referred to as basic CCE, does not require a high level of training. Advanced CCE, on the other hand, uses ultrasonography for full evaluation of cardiac function and hemodynamics, and requires extensive training, with formal certification now available. Indeed, recent years have seen the creation of worldwide certification in advanced CCE. While transthoracic CCE remains the most commonly used method, the transesophageal route has gained importance, particularly for intubated and ventilated patients. Conclusion: CCE is now widely accepted by the critical care community as a valuable tool in the ICU and emergency department, and in perioperative settings.