A randomised controlled, feasibility study to establish the acceptability of early outpatient review and early cardiac rehabilitation compared to standard practice after cardiac surgery and viability of a future large-scale trial (FARSTER).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the acceptability and feasibility of delivering early outpatient review following cardiac surgery and early cardiac rehabilitation (CR), compared to standard practice to establish if a future large-scale trial is achievable. METHODS: A randomised controlled, feasibility trial with embedded health economic evaluation and qualitative interviews, recruited patients aged 18-80 years from two UK cardiac centres who had undergone elective or urgent cardiac surgery via a median sternotomy. Eligible, consenting participants were randomised 1:1 by a remote, centralised randomisation service to postoperative outpatient review 6 weeks after hospital discharge, followed by CR commencement from 8 weeks (control), or postoperative outpatient review 3 weeks after hospital discharge, followed by commencement of CR from 4 weeks (intervention). The primary outcome measures related to trial feasibility including recruitment, retention, CR adherence, and acceptability to participants/staff. Secondary outcome measures included health-rated quality of life using EQ-5D-5L, NHS resource-use, Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT) distance, 30- and 90-day mortality, surgical site complications and hospital readmission rates. RESULTS: Fifty participants were randomised (25 per group) and 92% declared fit for CR. Participant retention at final follow-up was 74%; completion rates for outcome data time points ranged from 28 to 92% for ISWT and 68 to 94% for follow-up questionnaires. At each time point, the mean ISWT distance walked was greater in the intervention group compared to the control. Mean utility scores increased from baseline to final follow-up by 0.202 for the intervention (0.188 control). Total costs were £1519 for the intervention (£2043 control). Fifteen participants and a research nurse were interviewed. Many control participants felt their outpatient review and CR could have happened sooner; intervention participants felt the timing was right. The research nurse found obtaining consent for willing patients challenging due to discharge timings. CONCLUSION: Recruitment and retention rates showed that it would be feasible to undertake a full-scale trial subject to some modifications to maximise recruitment. Lower than expected recruitment and issues with one of the clinical tests were limitations of the study. Most study procedures proved feasible and acceptable to participants, and professionals delivering early CR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN80441309 (prospectively registered on 24/01/2019).

A survey of minimally invasive cardiac surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Lack of scientific data on the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) during the COVID-19 pandemic has made clinical decision making challenging. This survey aimed to appraise MICS activity in UK cardiac units and establish a consensus amongst front-line MICS surgeons regarding standard best MICS practise during the pandemic. METHODS: An online questionnaire was designed through the 'googleforms' platform. Responses were received from 24 out of 28 surgeons approached (85.7%), across 17 cardiac units. RESULTS: There was a strong consensus against a higher risk of conversion from minimally invasive to full sternotomy (92%; n = 22) nor there is increased infection (79%; n = 19) or bleeding (96%; n = 23) with MICS compared to full sternotomy during the pandemic. The majority of respondents (67%; n = 16) felt that it was safe to perform MICS during COVID-19, and that it should not be halted (71%; n = 17). London cardiac units experienced a decrease in MICS (60%; n = 6), whereas non-London units saw no reduction. All London MICS surgeons wore an FP3 mask compared to 62% (n = 8) of non-London MICS surgeons, 23% (n = 3) of which only wore a surgical mask. London MICS surgeons felt that routine double gloving should be done (60%; n = 6) whereas non-London MICS surgeons held a strong consensus that it should not (92%; n = 12). CONCLUSION: Whilst more robust evidence on the effect of COVID-19 on MICS is awaited, this survey provides interesting insights for clinical decision-making regarding MICS and aids to facilitate the development of standardised MICS guidelines for an effective response during future pandemics.

Cardiac surgery outcome during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective review of the early experience in nine UK centres.

BACKGROUND: Early studies conclude patients with Covid-19 have a high risk of death, but no studies specifically explore cardiac surgery outcome. We investigate UK cardiac surgery outcomes during the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included all adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery between 1st March and 30th April 2020 in nine UK centres. Data was obtained and linked locally from the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Adult Cardiac Surgery database, the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre database and local electronic systems. The anonymised datasets were analysed by the lead centre. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, propensity score matching (PSM), conditional logistic regression and hierarchical quantile regression. RESULTS: Of 755 included individuals, 53 (7.0%) had Covid-19. Comparing those with and without Covid-19, those with Covid-19 had increased mortality (24.5% v 3.5%, p < 0.0001) and longer post-operative stay (11 days v 6 days, p = 0.001), both of which remained significant after PSM. Patients with a pre-operative Covid-19 diagnosis recovered in a similar way to non-Covid-19 patients. However, those with a post-operative Covid-19 diagnosis remained in hospital for an additional 5 days (12 days v 7 days, p = 0.024) and had a considerably higher mortality rate compared to those with a pre-operative diagnosis (37.1% v 0.0%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: To mitigate against the risks of Covid-19, particularly the post-operative burden, robust and effective pre-surgery diagnosis protocols alongside effective strategies to maintain a Covid-19 free environment are needed. Dedicated cardiac surgery hubs could be valuable in achieving safe and continual delivery of cardiac surgery.

A nationwide survey of UK cardiac surgeons' view on clinical decision making during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

BACKGROUND: No firm recommendations are currently available to guide decision making for patients requiring cardiac surgery during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Systematic appraisal of senior surgeons' consensus can be used to generate interim recommendations until data from clinical observations become available. Hence, we aimed to collect and quantitatively appraise nationwide UK consultants' opinions on clinical decision making for patients requiring cardiac surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We E-mailed a Web-based questionnaire to all consultant cardiac surgeons through the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland mailing list on the April 17, 2020, and we predetermined to close the survey on the April 21, 2020. This survey was primarily designed to gather information on UK surgeons' opinions using 12 items. Strong consensus was predefined as an opinion shared by at least 60% of responding consultants. RESULTS: A total of 86 consultant surgeons undertook the survey. All UK cardiac units were represented by at least 1 consultant. Strong consensus was achieved for the following key questions: (1) before any hospital admission for cardiac surgery, nasopharyngeal swab, polymerase chain reaction, and computed tomography of the chest should be performed; (2) the use of full personal protective equipment should to be adopted in every case by the theater team regardless of the patient's COVID-19 status; (3) the risk of COVID-19 exposure for patients undergoing heart surgery should be considered moderate to high and likely to increase mortality if it occurs; and (4) cardiac procedures should be decided based on a rapidly convened multidisciplinary team discussion for every patient. The majority believed that both aortic and mitral surgery should be considered in selected cases. The role of coronary artery bypass graft surgery during the pandemic was controversial. CONCLUSIONS: In this unprecedented pandemic period, this survey provides information for generating interim recommendations until data from clinical observations become available.