Female Surgeons in Cardiac Surgery: Does the Surgeon's Gender Affect the Outcome of Routine Coronary Artery Bypass Graft and Isolated Aortic Valve Surgery?

BACKGROUND: The increasing presence of female doctors in the field of cardiac surgery has raised questions about their surgical quality compared to their male colleagues. Despite their success, female surgeons are still underrepresented in leadership positions, and biases and concerns regarding their performance persist. This study aims to examine whether female surgeons perform worse, equally well, or better than their male counterparts in commonly performed procedures that have a significant number of female patients. METHOD: A retrospective cohort of patients from 2011 to 2020 who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and aortic valve surgery was studied. To compare the surgical quality of men and women, a 1:1 propensity score matching (two groups of 680 patients operated by men and women, respectively, factors: age, logarithm of EuroSCORE (ES), elective, urgent or emergent surgery, isolated aortic valve, or isolated CABG) was performed. Procedure time, bypass time, x-clamp time, hospital stay, and early mortality were compared. RESULTS: After propensity score matching between surgeons of both sexes, patients operated by males (PoM) did not differ from patients operated by females (PoF) in mean age (PoM: 66.72 ± 9.33, PoF: 67.24 ± 9.19 years, p = 0.346), log. ES (PoM: 5.58 ± 7.35, PoF: 5.53 ± 7.26, p = 0.507), or urgency of operation (PoM: 43.09% elective, 48.97% urgent, 7.94% emergency, PoF: 40.88% elective, 55.29% urgent, 3.83% emergency, p = 0.556). This was also the case for male and female patients separately. Female surgeons had higher procedure time (PoM: 224.35 ± 110.54 min; PoF: 265.41 ± 53.60 min), bypass time (PoM: 107.46 ± 45.09 min, PoF: 122.42 ± 36.18 min), and x-clamp time (PoM: 61.45 ± 24.77 min; PoF: 72.76 ± 24.43 min). Hospitalization time (PoM: 15.96 ± 8.12, PoF: 15.98 ± 6.91 days, p = 0,172) as well as early mortality (PoM: 2.21%, PoF: 3.09%, p = 0.328) did not differ significantly. This was also the case for male and female patients separately. CONCLUSION: Our study reveals that in routine heart surgery, the gender of the surgeon does not impact the success of the operation or the early outcome of patients. Despite taking more time to perform procedures, female surgeons demonstrated comparable surgical outcomes to their male counterparts. It is possible that women's inclination for thoroughness contributes to the longer duration of procedures, while male surgeons may prioritize efficiency. Nevertheless, this difference in duration did not translate into significant differences in primary outcomes following routine cardiac surgery. These findings highlight the importance of recognizing the equal competence of female surgeons and dispelling biases regarding their surgical performance.

Results of Four-Stented Biological Aortic Valves and How They Compare to PARTNER-3.

OBJECTIVE: According to our nationwide registry, total numbers of surgical aortic valve implantation (sAVR) are constantly declining, while transcathether aortic valve implantation (TAVI) indications are widened toward intermediate- and low-risk patients. So, is there still room for conventionally implanted valves? Can results compete with TAVI or will sAVR be marginalized in the near future? METHODS: Between 2011 and 2019, 1,034 patients (67.1% male, mean = 72.2 years) were enrolled receiving stented biological valves with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), atrial ablation, or wrapping of the ascending aorta. Odds ratios for the early and late mortality were calculated regarding comorbidities as potential risk factors. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS. RESULTS: Overall, early mortality (EM) was 6.1%, 1-year mortality was 11.2%, and 5-year mortality was 19.9%. In low-risk patients (EuroSCORE II <4%), it was 1.0, 2.7, and 9.3%. Incidence of EM was significantly increased following decompensation, prosthetic valve, pacemaker carrier, dialysis, and pulmonary hypertension. Postoperative complications, such as systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, multiorgan failure, hepatic failure, dialysis, gastrointestinal bleeding, and ileus, also increased EM. Late mortality was significantly increased by dialysis, hepatic cirrhosis, infected port system, aortic valve endocarditis, prosthetic valve carrier, and chronic hemodialysis. CONCLUSION: Conventionally implanted aortic valves do well early and late. The fate of the patient is dependent on individual risk-factors. Particularly, in low-risk patients, sAVR can compete with TAVI showing overall good early, as well as late results being even superior in some important aspects such as pacemaker implantation rate. Thus, the time is yet not ripe for TAVI to take over primary indications for AVR in low-risk patient.

Do Not Withhold Mitral Surgery from Patients with Poor Left Ventricular Function.

Background and Objectives: Increasing reluctance to perform surgical mitral valve repair or replacement particularly in high-risk patients with poor left-ventricular function is trending. These patients are increasingly treated interventionally, e.g., by MitraClip, but often show only low to moderate improvement. The primary objective of the study was to investigate whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) influences postoperative mortality. Materials and Methods: The study included 903 patients undergoing mitral valve repair or replacement between 2009 and 2021. Statistical comparison was performed between patients with LVEF ≤ 30% and LVEF > 30%. Finally, statistical analysis was performed according to propensity score matching (1:3 PS matching). Results: No significant difference in in-hospital mortality was found before and after matching regarding LVEF ≤ 30% and LVEF > 30% (Pre: 10.8% vs. 15.1%, p = 0.241, after: 11.6% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.142). After PS matching, the 112 patients with LVEF ≤ 30% compared with 336 patients with LVEF > 30% showed a significantly higher preoperative NT-proBNP (p < 0.001), larger diameters at preoperative left ventricle and atrium (p < 0.001), lower preoperative TAPSE (p = 0.003) and PAP (p = 0.003), and more dilated cardiomyopathy and chronic kidney disease (p < 0.001, p = 0.045). Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate that poor preoperative LVEF alone does not play a significant role in postoperative outcome and long-term mortality. Prognosis appears to be multifactorial. Poor preoperative LVEF is not a contraindication for surgery and does not justify primary interventional treatment accepting inferior hemodynamic results impeding outcome.