Search

Background: The onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced our cardiac surgery program and hospital to enact drastic measures that has forced us to change how we care for cardiac surgery patients, assist with COVID-19 care, and enable support for the hospital in terms of physical resources, providers, and resident training., Methods: In this review, we review the cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 and describe our system-wide adaptations to the pandemic, including the use of telemedicine, how a severe reduction in operative volume affected our program, the process of redeployment of staff, repurposing of residents into specific task teams, the creation of operation room intensive care units, and the challenges that we faced in this process., Results: We offer a revised set of definitions of surgical priority during this pandemic and how this was applied to our system, followed by specific considerations in coronary/valve, aortic, heart failure and transplant surgery. Finally, we outline a path forward for cardiac surgery for the near future., Conclusions: We recognize that individual programs around the world will eventually face COVID-19 with varying levels of infection burden and different resources, and we hope this document can assist programs to plan for the future., (Copyright © 2020 Jointly between The American Association for Thoracic Surgery, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced our cardiac surgery programme and hospital to enact drastic measures that has forced us to change how we care for cardiac surgery patients, assist with COVID-19 care and enable support for the hospital in terms of physical resources, providers and resident training., Methods: In this review, we review the cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 and describe our system-wide adaptations to the pandemic, including the use of telemedicine, how a severe reduction in operative volume affected our programme, the process of redeployment of staff, repurposing of residents into specific task teams, the creation of operation room intensive care units, and the challenges that we faced in this process., Results: We offer a revised set of definitions of surgical priority during this pandemic and how this was applied to our system, followed by specific considerations in coronary/valve, aortic, heart failure and transplant surgery. Finally, we outline a path forward for cardiac surgery for the near future., Conclusions: We recognize that individual programmes around the world will eventually face COVID-19 with varying levels of infection burden and different resources, and we hope this document can assist programmes to plan for the future., (This article was received at JTCVS on 14 April 2020, Received in revised form and accepted at JTCVS on 18 April 2020. This article has been copublished in the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery and The Annals of Thoracic Surgery Copyright © 2020 Jointly between the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objectives: This study assessed comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus traditional sternotomy mitral valve surgery in elderly patients., Methods: From January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2008, 1005 patients underwent isolated mitral valve surgery at our institution. Patients ≥ 75-years-old were included in analysis (sternotomy, n = 105; minimally invasive, n = 70). Clinical outcomes included bypass and crossclamp time, length of hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality. To assess resource use, total hospital costs and discharge location were analyzed. Three standardized inpatient functional status outcomes were also assessed., Results: The minimally invasive approach was associated with a 9.2-minute longer crossclamp time (P = .037) and a 25.2-minute longer bypass time (P < .001). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with a 3.1-day shorter hospitalization (P = .033). There were no significant differences in rate of major postoperative complications (P = .085) or long-term survival (P = .60). Minimally invasive approach was associated with a $6721 lower median cost of hospitalization (P = .007) and more common discharge to home, routinely or with a health aide, rather than to rehabilitation (P = .021). Minimally invasive patients achieved faster rates of independent ambulation (P = .039) and independent sit-to-stand activity (P = .003), although there were no differences in time to independent stair climbing (P = .31)., Conclusions: Among elderly patients, minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is associated with slightly longer crossclamp and bypass times but with equivalent morbidity and mortality and shorter hospitalization, decreased resource use, and improved postoperative functional status., (Copyright © 2012. Published by Mosby, Inc.)

Objectives: The present study examined the relationship between hospital and surgeon coronary artery bypass grafting procedural volume, mortality, morbidity, and National Quality Forum care processes in a university-based community hospital quality improvement program., Methods: The study population consisted of 2218 consecutive patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting from 2007 to 2009 in a university-based quality improvement program that emphasizes involvement of all surgeons in the academic quality endeavor. The endpoints included operative mortality, major morbidity, and National Quality Forum-endorsed process measures as defined by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The procedural volume was analyzed as a categorical and continuous variable using general estimating equations, which accounted for clustering effects and which were adjusted for Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scores and the propensity for operation in a low- versus high-volume program., Results: The annual program volume ranged from 67 to 292 (median, 136; interquartile range, 88-224) and surgeon volume from 1 to 124 (median, 58; interquartile range, 30-89). The mortality rate among the hospitals was 0.47% to 2.23% (0.8% overall), and the observed/expected mortality ranged from 0 to 1.20 (0.41 overall). When comparing low-volume (<200 cases/year) and high-volume centers, no difference was found in the mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-2.54, P = .85), morbidity (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.73-2.43), or any of the medication process measures. No difference was found in mortality (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.81-3.13; P = .18), morbidity (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.86-1.66; P = .28), or medication failure (OR, 0.57, 95% CI, 0.3-1.10; P = .10) between the high- and low-volume surgeons (<87). After adjustment for both the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score and the propensity score, no association was found for either hospital or surgeon volume with mortality or morbidity. However, a lack of compliance with National Quality Forum measures was highly predictive of morbidity (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.18-1.93; P = .001), regardless of volume, even after adjustment for predicted risk., Conclusions: In the setting of a university-based community hospital quality improvement program, excellent surgical results can consistently be obtained even in relatively low-volume programs. The surgical outcomes were not associated with program or surgeon volume, but were directly correlated with the focus on quality as manifested by compliance with evidence-based quality standards. Meaningful university affiliation might represent a new quality paradigm for cardiac surgery in the community hospital setting., (Copyright © 2012 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)