Survey of Contemporary Cardiac Surgery Intensive Care Unit Models in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) structure and intensive care physician staffing (IPS) models are thought to influence outcomes after cardiac surgery. Given limited information on staffing in the cardiothoracic ICU, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Workforce on Critical Care undertook a survey to describe current IPS models. We hypothesized that variability would exist throughout the United States. METHODS: A survey was sent to The Society of Thoracic Surgeons centers in the United States. Center case volume, ICU census, procedure profiles, and the primary specialties of consultants were queried. Definitions of IPS models were open (managed by cardiac surgeons), closed (all decisions made by dedicated intensivists 7 days a week), or semiopen (intensivist attends 5-7 days a week with surgeons cosharing management). Experience level of bedside providers and after-hours provider coverage were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 965 centers contacted, 148 (15.3%) completed surveys. Approximately 41% of reporting centers used a dedicated cardiothoracic ICU for immediate postoperative management. The most common IPS model was open (47%), followed by semiopen (41%) and closed (12%). The primary specialties of intensivists varied, with pulmonary medicine/critical care being predominant (67%). Physician assistants were the most common after-hours provider (44%). More than one-third of responding centers described having no house staff, other than bedside nurses, for nighttime coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiothoracic ICU models vary widely in the United States, with almost half being open, often with no in-house coverage. In-house nighttime coverage was (1) not driven by case complexity and (2) most commonly provided by a physician assistant. Clinical outcomes associated with different ISPS models require further evaluation.

Early Results of Surgical Simultaneous Therapy for Significant Carotid Artery Stenosis and Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this single-center, retrospective study was to review the early outcome with defined endpoints of myocardial infarction, brain injury, and death after coronary bypass grafting and simultaneous carotid endarterectomy with or without combined valve replacement. METHODS: During the preoperative investigation 52 (44 males, 8 females) patients were examined by cardiac catheterization within the scope of their coronary status. In addition, all patients underwent echocardiography, CT angiography of the supra-aortic vessels, and full description of their neurologic status. Included were all patients with the need of coronary revascularization, valve disease, and either symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis with a maximal narrowing of >70%. RESULTS: There was one (2%) patient with a perioperative stroke and paresis of the upper limb. One (2%) patient experienced PRIND (2%). Eighteen (35%) patients suffered symptomatic transitory psychotic syndrome that fully recovered in all patients. One (2%) patient incurred a perioperative myocardial infarction that could be cured by percutaneous coronary stent implantation. Overall mortality was 4%. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous coronary bypass grafting as a single procedure or in combination with valve replacement and endarterectomy of severe carotid lesions with or without patients' history of previous stroke can be performed with a calculated low surgical risk. The complication rate for neurologic and myocardial events is low compared with the hazard of a single surgical repair. The in-hospital mortality is not significantly different to isolated procedures. The concomitant appearance of coronary stenosis and carotid artery disease is reasonable due to the nature of arteriosclerosis. In our opinion these patients benefit from a combined surgical approach.