Search

Objectives: The UK postgraduate training program in cardiothoracic surgery is challenging and competitive, with trainees choosing the field for different reasons. This study aims to identify factors that influence medical students in pursuing a career within cardiothoracic surgery. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in which a questionnaire was anonymously filled out by medical students across 17 medical schools in the United Kingdom. An online survey platform was used for survey distribution and analysis. A mixed-methods approach was employed to gather quantitative and qualitative data. Data collection consisted of a series of closed questions and 1 open-ended question. The questions focused on the attitudes toward, knowledge of, and exposure to cardiothoracic surgery. Results: The survey yielded 265 responses. Interest in cardiothoracic surgery was seen in 45.3% of participants, with the leading factor for pursuing this career being lifestyle factors (50%), closely followed by the career opportunities (42.9%) and the aid of mentors (31%). Some discouraging factors were: Difficulty of learning material (37.7%), length of the training program (27.4%), competition in the field (26%), stress (24.3%), and lifestyle factors (22.1%). Conclusions: Whilst UK medical schools try to provide an introduction to specialties like cardiothoracic surgery, there remains a proportion of medical students who do not have access to opportunities needed to make a balanced career decision. Additionally, individual circumstances and aspirations tend to change from students' first year of study to their final year, which can alter their perceptions about the field.

Objective: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the effects of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) and conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) on morbidity and mortality rates after cardiac surgery. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials from the year 2000 with n > 40 patients were considered. Key search terms included variations of “mini,” “cardiopulmonary,” “bypass,” “extracorporeal,” “perfusion,” and “circuit.” Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcomes were postoperative mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, renal failure, blood loss, and a composite outcome comprised of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and renal failure. Duration of intensive care unit, and hospital stay was also recorded. Results: The 42 studies eligible for this study included a total of 2154 patients who underwent CECC and 2196 patients who underwent MECC. There were no significant differences in any preoperative or demographic characteristics. Compared with CECC, MECC did not reduce the incidence of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and renal failure but did significantly decrease the composite of these outcomes (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.81; P = .0002). MECC was also associated with reductions in arrhythmia (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.83; P = .0003), blood loss (mean difference [MD], –96.37 mL; 95% CI, –152.70 to –40.05 mL; P = .0008), hospital stay (MD, –0.70 days; 95% CI, –1.21 to –0.20 days; P = .006), and intensive care unit stay (MD, –2.27 hours; 95% CI, –3.03 to –1.50 hours; P

Objective: We sought to report our experience of repairing acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) over 21 years during in-hours versus out-of-hours before and after the establishment of specialized aortic service and rota. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all patients who had ATAAD repair between November 1998 and December 2019 in our center. In-hours were defined as 08:00 to 19:59 hours and out of hours were defined as 20:00 to 07:59 hours. Results: A total of 286 patients underwent repair of ATAAD. Eighty operations took place during the prerota period (43 operations in hours, 37 out of hours) and 206 operations during the specialized rota period (110 in hours, 96 out of hours). There was no difference in 30-day mortality between the in-hours and out-of-hours groups in either the prerota (23.3% vs 32.4%; P = .36) or specialized rota periods (11.6% vs 11.5%; P = .94). Mean number of cases per year increased by 83% between the prerota and specialized rota periods. Thirty-day mortality reduced in both the in-hours (23.3% vs 11.6%) and out-of-hours (32.4% vs 11.5%) groups since introduction of the specialized aortic rota. Conclusions: Outcomes in repair of ATAAD during in-hours and out-of-hours periods are similar when operated on in a specialized unit with a dedicated aortic team. This emphasizes the current global trend of service centralization without particular attention to time of day to operate on such critical cohort patients.

Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to compare clinical outcomes of warm and cold cardioplegia in cardiac surgeries in adult patients, with trial sequential analysis (TSA) used to determine the conclusiveness of the results. Methods: Electronic searches were performed on PubMed, Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane library to identify all studies that compared warm and cold cardioplegia in cardiac surgeries. Primary end points were in-hospital or 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, low cardiac output syndrome, intra-aortic balloon pump use, stroke, and new atrial fibrillation. Secondary end points were acute kidney injury, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit length of stay. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed for (1) studies published since publication of Fan and colleagues in 2010, (2) randomized controlled studies, (3) studies with low risk of bias, (4) coronary artery bypass graft surgeries, and (5) studies with cold blood versus those with cold crystalloid cardioplegia. TSA was performed to determine conclusiveness of the results, using on all outcomes without significant heterogeneity from studies of low risk of bias. Results: No significant differences were found between post-operative rates of mortality, myocardial infarction, low cardiac output syndrome, intra-aortic balloon pump use, stroke, new atrial fibrillation, and acute kidney injury between warm and cold cardioplegia. TSA concluded that current evidence was sufficient to rule out a 20% relative risk reduction in these outcomes. Conclusions: Concerning safety outcomes, current evidence suggests that the choice between warm and cold cardioplegia remains in the surgeon's preference.

Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed challenges to health care services across the world. There has been a significant restructuring of health care resources to protect services for patients with COVID-19–related illness and to maintain emergency and urgent medical and surgical activity. This study assessed access to emergency treatment, logistical challenges, and outcomes of patients with acute aortic syndrome during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. Methods: This was a multicenter study, from March 1 to May 20, 2020 that included 19 cardiac centers, was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data obtained from individual centers' national cardiac surgical databases. Demographic details, choice of treatment, operative details, and outcomes were collected. COVID-19 screening, timing of surgery, and outcomes of COVID-19–positive and –negative patients were also analyzed. Results: In total, 88 patients presented with acute aortic syndrome to participating centers from March 1 to May 20, 2020. There were 79 aortic dissections (89.8%), 7 intramural hematomas (7.9%), and 2 penetrating aortic ulcers (2.3%). Seventy-nine patients (89.8%) underwent surgery. In-hospital mortality was 25.3% (n = 20). Postoperative complications included 13.9% postoperative stroke (11.4% permanent and 2.3% temporary), 16.5% rate of hemofiltration, and 10.1% rate of tracheostomy. Nine patients were treated conservatively with a mortality of 60%. Seven patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, and there was no associated mortality. Conclusions: Despite extensive restructuring of health care resources, access to emergency and urgent treatment for patients with acute aortic syndrome was maintained in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. Clinical outcomes were similar to the prepandemic period.