Heart Valve Surgery Performed by Trainee Surgeons: Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac surgical units must balance trainee education with the duty to provide optimal patient care. This is particularly challenging with valvular surgery, given the lower volume and increased complexity of these procedures. The present meta-analysis was conducted to assess the impact of trainee operator status on clinical outcomes following valvular surgery. METHODS: Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases were systematically searched for studies reporting clinical outcomes according to the training status of the primary operator (consultant or trainee). Data were extracted and meta-analysed according to pre-defined endpoints. RESULTS: Eleven observational studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on five patient cohorts undergoing mitral valve surgery (n=3975), six undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) (n=6236) and three undergoing combined AVR and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n=3495). Perioperative mortality was not significantly different between trainee and consultant cases for mitral valve surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.37), AVR (OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.37-1.24), or combined AVR and CABG (OR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.40-2.85). The incidences of perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, acute renal failure, reoperation or wound infection were not significantly different between trainee and consultant cases. There was a paucity of mid-term survival data. CONCLUSIONS: Valvular surgery cases performed primarily by trainees were not associated with adverse perioperative outcomes. These findings suggest the rigorous design of cardiac surgical trainee programs can sufficiently mitigate trainee deficiencies. However, studies with longer follow-up duration and echocardiographic data are required to assess long-term durability and safety.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of preoperative atrial fibrillation on short- and long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of preoperative atrial fibrillation (preAF) on early and late outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were systematically searched for studies that reported AVR outcomes according to the presence or absence of preAF. Data were independently extracted by two investigators; a meta-analysis was conducted according to predefined clinical endpoints. Studies including patients undergoing concomitant atrial fibrillation surgery were excluded. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Six observational studies with 8 distinct AVR cohorts (AVR± concomitant surgery) met criteria for inclusion, including a total of 6693 patients. Of these, 1014 (15%) presented with preAF. Overall, perioperative mortality was increased in patients with preAF (odds ratio [OR] 2.33; 95% CI: 1.48-3.67; P<0.001). Subgroup analysis of patients undergoing isolated AVR also demonstrated preAF as a risk factor for perioperative mortality (OR 2.49; 95% CI: 1.57-3.95; P<0.001). PreAF was also associated with acute renal failure (OR 1.42; 95% CI: 1.07-1.89; P=0.02) but not stroke (OR 1.11; 95% CI: 0.59-2.12; P=0.74). Late mortality was significantly higher in patients with preAF (hazard ratio [HR] 1.75; 95% CI: 1.33-2.30; P<0.001). This relationship remained true when only patients who underwent isolated AVR were analyzed (HR 1.97; 95% CI: 1.11-3.51; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: PreAF is associated with an increased risk of early- and late-mortality after AVR. These data support the more widespread utilization of concomitant AF ablation.

Equivalent outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery performed by consultant versus trainee surgeons: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, concerns have been raised about the learning opportunities available to cardiac surgical trainees. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the impact of trainee operator status on clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies that reported CABG outcomes according to the training status of the primary operator (consultant vs trainee). Data were independently extracted by 2 investigators; a meta-analysis was conducted according to predefined clinical endpoints. RESULTS: Sixteen observational studies (n = 52,966) met criteria for inclusion, with 8 studies (n = 36,479) reporting propensity-adjusted analyses. Trainee cases were associated with increased aortic crossclamp duration (mean difference: 4.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-8.83) and cardiopulmonary bypass duration (mean difference: 4.24; 95% CI, 0.00-8.47). Perioperative mortality was similar for CABG performed primarily by trainees versus consultants (odds ratio 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81-1.18). No significant difference was found in the incidence of perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, reoperation for bleeding, or wound infection. Trainee operator status was not associated with increased midterm mortality (hazard ratio 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11). In subgroup analysis that included 5 studies and 8025 patients, off-pump CABG trainee cases were not associated with increased perioperative mortality or morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate supervision, conventional CABG can be performed by trainee surgeons without an adverse impact on perioperative outcomes or midterm survival. Data regarding off-pump CABG are limited, and further research is warranted to ascertain the impact of trainee operator status on long-term outcomes after off-pump CABG.