Emergence of the arterial switch procedure for transposition of the great arteries and the potential cost of surgical innovation

Pediatric Cardiac Xenotransplantation: Recommendations for the Ethical Design of Clinical Trials

For children with complex congenital heart problems, cardiac allotransplantation is sometimes the best therapeutic option. However, availability of hearts for pediatric patients is limited, resulting in a long and growing waitlist, and a high mortality rate while waiting. Cardiac xenotransplantation has been proposed as one therapeutic alternative for neonates and infants, either in lieu of allotransplantation or as a bridge until an allograft becomes available. Scientific and clinical developments in xenotransplantation appear likely to permit cardiac xenotransplantation clinical trials in adults in the coming years. The ethical issues around xenotransplantation of the heart and other organs and tissues have recently been examined, but to date, only limited literature is available on the ethical issues that are attendant with pediatric heart xenotransplantation. Here, we summarize the ethical issues, focusing on (1) whether cardiac xenotransplantation should proceed in adults or children first, (2) pediatric recipient selection for initial xenotransplantation trials, (3) special problems regarding informed consent in this context, and (4) related psychosocial and public perception considerations. We conclude with specific recommendations regarding ethically informed design of pediatric heart xenotransplantation trials.

Understanding Outcomes After Major Surgery

The global volume of surgery is increasing. Adverse outcomes after surgery have resource implications and long-term impact on quality of life and consequently represent a significant and underappreciated public health issue. Standardization of outcome reporting is essential for evidence synthesis, risk stratification, perioperative care planning, and to inform shared decision-making. The association between short- and long-term outcomes, which persists when corrected for base-line risk, has significant implications for patients and providers and warrants further investigation. Candidate mechanisms include sustained inflammation and reduced physician activity, which may, in the future, be mitigated by targeted interventions.

Bioethics for Neonatal Cardiac Care

BACKGROUND

Clinicians caring for neonates with congenital heart disease encounter challenges with ethical implications in daily practice and must have some basic fluency in ethical principles and practical applications.

METHODS

Good ethical practice begins with a thorough understanding of the details and narrative of each individual case, examination via classic principles of bioethics, and further framing of that translation into practice.

RESULTS

We explore some of these issues and expand awareness through the lens of a case presentation beginning with fetal considerations through end-of-life discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

We include specific sections that bring attention to shared decision-making, research ethics, and outcomes reporting. We review empirical evidence and highlight recommendations.

Cardiac surgery and congenital heart disease: reflections on a modern revolution

The success of cardiac surgery has transformed the prospects of children with congenital heart disease with over 90% now surviving to adulthood. The early pioneering surgeons took on significant risk, whilst current surgical practice emphasises safety and consistency. In this article we review important British contributions to the field and consider challenges for the future, specifically how to better manage and reduce the adverse sequelae of congenital cardiac surgery by continuing to innovate safely.

Conceptualising Surgical Innovation: An Eliminativist Proposal

Improving surgical interventions is key to improving outcomes. Ensuring the safe and transparent translation of such improvements is essential. Evaluation and governance initiatives, including the IDEAL framework and the Macquarie Surgical Innovation Identification Tool have begun to address this. Yet without a definition of innovation that allows non-surgeons to identify when it is occurring, these initiatives are of limited value. A definition seems elusive, so we undertook a conceptual study of surgical innovation. This indicated common conceptual areas in discussions of (surgical) innovation, that we categorised alliteratively under the themes of "purpose" (about drivers of innovation), "place" (about contexts of innovation), "process" (about differentiating innovation), "product" (about tangible and intangible results of innovation) and "person" (about personal factors and viewpoint). These conceptual areas are used in varying-sometimes contradictory-ways in different discussions. Highlighting these conceptual areas of surgical innovation may be useful in clarifying what should be reported in registries of innovation. However our wider conclusion was that the term "innovation" carries too much conceptual baggage to inform normative inquiry about surgical practice. Instead, we propose elimination of the term "innovation" from serious discourse aimed at evaluation and regulation of surgery. In our view researchers, philosophers and policy-makers should consider what it is about surgical activity that needs attention and develop robust definitions to identify these areas: for our own focus on transparency and safety, this means finding criteria that can objectively identify certain risk profiles during the development of surgery.

Innovative Practice, Clinical Research, and the Ethical Advancement of Medicine

Innovative practice occurs when a clinician provides something new, untested, or nonstandard to a patient in the course of clinical care, rather than as part of a research study. Commentators have noted that patients engaged in innovative practice are at significant risk of suffering harm, exploitation, or autonomy violations. By creating a pathway for harmful or nonbeneficial interventions to spread within medical practice without being subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation, innovative practice poses similar risks to the wider community of patients and society as a whole. Given these concerns, how should we control and oversee innovative practice, and in particular, how should we coordinate innovative practice and clinical research? In this article, I argue that an ethical approach overseeing innovative practice must encourage the early transition to rigorous clinical research without delaying or deferring the development of beneficial innovations or violating the autonomy rights of clinicians and their patients.