Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

BACKGROUND

The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation.

FINDINGS

This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28-2·40], p<0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65-3·22], p<0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3-5 versus grades 1-2 (2·35 [1·57-3·53], p<0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01-2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06-2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01-2·31], p=0·047).

INTERPRETATION

Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.

The impact of obesity and bariatric surgery on circulating and tissue biomarkers of endometrial cancer risk

Obesity is the strongest risk factor for endometrial cancer (EC). To inform targeted screening and prevention strategies, we assessed the impact of obesity and subsequent bariatric surgery-induced weight loss on endometrial morphology and molecular pathways implicated in endometrial carcinogenesis. Blood and endometrial tissue were obtained from women with class III-IV obesity (body mass index ≥40 and ≥50 kg/m2 , respectively) immediately prior to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy, and at two and 12 months' follow up. The endometrium underwent pathological examination and immunohistochemistry was used to quantify proliferation (Ki-67), oncogenic signaling (PTEN, pAKT, pERK) and hormone receptor (ER, PR) expression status. Circulating biomarkers of insulin resistance, reproductive function and inflammation were also measured at each time point. Seventy-two women underwent bariatric surgery. At 12 months, the mean change in total and excess body weight was -32.7 and -62.8%, respectively. Baseline endometrial biopsies revealed neoplastic change in 10 women (14%): four had EC, six had atypical hyperplasia (AH). After bariatric surgery, most cases of AH resolved (5/6) without intervention (3/6) or with intrauterine progestin (2/6). Biomarkers of endometrial proliferation (Ki-67), oncogenic signaling (pAKT) and hormone receptor status (ER, PR) were significantly reduced, with restoration of glandular PTEN expression, at 2 and 12 months. There were reductions in circulating biomarkers of insulin resistance (HbA1c, HOMA-IR) and inflammation (hsCRP, IL-6), and increases in reproductive biomarkers (LH, FSH, SHBG). We found an unexpectedly high prevalence of occult neoplastic changes in the endometrium of women undergoing bariatric surgery. Their spontaneous reversal and accompanying down-regulation of PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling with weight loss may have implications for screening, prevention and treatment of this disease.

Long-Term Survival and Freedom From Reintervention After Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Background:

The long-term outcomes of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are the subject of speculation. Our institution has >15 years of experience performing CABG both off-pump (OPCAB) and on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Our null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in a long-term composite of death and revascularisation between the 2 methods.

Methods:

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all isolated CABG at our institution from 2001 to 2015. We used an intention-to-treat analysis, performing risk adjustment with adjustment for and matching to propensity score. In total, 13 226 patients had CABG: 5882 had OPCAB and 7344 had CPB, with a median follow-up of 6.2 years.

Results:

Of the 5882 OPCAB, 76 (1.3%) converted to CPB. One-, 5-, and 10-year survivals in each group were similar (OPCAB vs CPB: 96.7%, 87.9%, 72.1% vs 96.2%, 87.4%, 72.8%). No difference was found in long-term survival (adjusted hazards ratio [HR] 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94–1.11 for OPCAB vs CPB; P =0.56) or freedom from death and reintervention (HR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92–1.06 for OPCAB vs CPB; P =0.23). Patients receiving OPCAB had higher EuroSCOREs (median [quartiles]: 2.81 [1.53–5.57] vs 2.73 [1.51–5.22]; P =0.01), fewer grafts (mean±SD: 3.0±0.9 vs 3.3±0.9; P <0.001), but more total arterial grafting (45.9% vs 8.4%; P <0.001). OPCAB also had more trainee first operators (15.3% vs 12.5%), lower cardiac enzyme rise, shorter length of stay, and fewer complications (such as myocardial infarction).

Conclusions:

OPCAB is associated with similar long-term outcomes to CABG performed on CPB in our institution. Our low conversion rate to CPB, while training junior surgeons, demonstrates that OPCAB can be taught safely. The number of grafts performed between the 2 approaches is clinically comparable, if statistically different, and appears to provide equal benefits to survival and freedom from reintervention as on-pump CABG.

Post-infarction ventricular septal defect: percutaneous or surgical management in the UK national registry

AIMS

Post-infarction ventricular septal defect (PIVSD) is a mechanical complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with a poor prognosis. Surgical repair is the mainstay of treatment, although percutaneous closure is increasingly undertaken.

METHODS AND RESUTS

Patients treated with surgical or percutaneous repair of PIVSD (2010-2021) were identified at 16 UK centres. Case note review was undertaken. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Patient groups were allocated based upon initial management (percutaneous or surgical). Three-hundred sixty-two patients received 416 procedures (131 percutaneous, 231 surgery). 16.1% of percutaneous patients subsequently had surgery. 7.8% of surgical patients subsequently had percutaneous treatment. Times from AMI to treatment were similar [percutaneous 9 (6-14) vs. surgical 9 (4-22) days, P = 0.18]. Surgical patients were more likely to have cardiogenic shock (62.8% vs. 51.9%, P = 0.044). Percutaneous patients were substantially older [72 (64-77) vs. 67 (61-73) years, P < 0.001] and more likely to be discussed in a heart team setting. There was no difference in long-term mortality between patients (61.1% vs. 53.7%, P = 0.17). In-hospital mortality was lower in the surgical group (55.0% vs. 44.2%, P = 0.048) with no difference in mortality after hospital discharge (P = 0.65). Cardiogenic shock [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.97 (95% confidence interval 1.37-2.84), P < 0.001), percutaneous approach [aHR 1.44 (1.01-2.05), P = 0.042], and number of vessels with coronary artery disease [aHR 1.22 (1.01-1.47), P = 0.043] were independently associated with long-term mortality.

CONCLUSION

Surgical and percutaneous repair are viable options for management of PIVSD. There was no difference in post-discharge long-term mortality between patients, although in-hospital mortality was lower for surgery.

Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve disease is a common condition that is easily treatable with cardiac surgery. This is conventionally performed by opening the sternum longitudinally down the centre ("median sternotomy") and replacing the valve under cardiopulmonary bypass. Median sternotomy is generally well tolerated, but as less invasive options have become available, the efficacy of limited incisions has been called into question. In particular, the effects of reducing the visibility and surgical access has raised safety concerns with regards to the placement of cannulae, venting of the heart, epicardial wire placement, and de-airing of the heart at the end of the procedure. These difficulties may increase operating times, affecting outcome. The benefits of smaller incisions are thought to include decreased pain; improved respiratory mechanics; reductions in wound infections, bleeding, and need for transfusion; shorter intensive care stay; better cosmesis; and a quicker return to normal activity.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy in people with aortic valve disease requiring surgical replacement.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, clinical trials registries, and manufacturers' websites from inception to July 2016, with no language limitations. We reviewed references of identified papers to identify any further studies of relevance.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing aortic valve replacement via a median sternotomy versus aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy. We excluded trials that performed other minimally invasive incisions such as mini-thoracotomies, port access, trans-apical, trans-femoral or robotic procedures. Although some well-conducted prospective and retrospective case-control and cohort studies exist, these were not included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial papers to extract data, assess quality, and identify risk of bias. A third review author provided arbitration where required. The quality of evidence was determined using the GRADE methodology and results of patient-relevant outcomes were summarised in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included seven trials with 511 participants. These included adults from centres in Austria, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and Egypt. We performed 12 comparisons investigating the effects of minimally invasive limited upper hemi-sternotomy on aortic valve replacement as compared to surgery performed via full median sternotomy.There was no evidence of any effect of upper hemi-sternotomy on mortality versus full median sternotomy (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.82; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no evidence of an increase in cardiopulmonary bypass time with aortic valve replacement performed via an upper hemi-sternotomy (mean difference (MD) 3.02 minutes, 95% CI -4.10 to 10.14; participants = 311; studies = 5; low quality). There was no evidence of an increase in aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.95 minutes, 95% CI -3.45 to 5.35; participants = 391; studies = 6; low quality). None of the included studies reported major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite end point.There was no evidence of an effect on length of hospital stay through limited hemi-sternotomy (MD -1.31 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 0.01; participants = 297; studies = 5; I2 = 89%; very low quality). Postoperative blood loss was lower in the upper hemi-sternotomy group (MD -158.00 mL, 95% CI -303.24 to -12.76; participants = 297; studies = 5; moderate quality). The evidence did not support a reduction in deep sternal wound infections (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.30; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality) or re-exploration (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.13; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no change in pain scores by upper hemi-sternotomy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.33, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.20; participants = 197; studies = 3; I2 = 70%; very low quality), but there was a small increase in postoperative pulmonary function tests with minimally invasive limited sternotomy (MD 1.98 % predicted FEV1, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.33; participants = 257; studies = 4; I2 = 28%; low quality). There was a small reduction in length of intensive care unit stays as a result of the minimally invasive upper hemi-sternotomy (MD -0.57 days, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.20; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). Postoperative atrial fibrillation was not reduced with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through limited compared to full sternotomy (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.89; participants = 240; studies = 3; moderate quality), neither were postoperative ventilation times (MD -1.12 hours, 95% CI -3.43 to 1.19; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). None of the included studies reported cost analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review was assessed as generally low to moderate quality. The study sample sizes were small and underpowered to demonstrate differences in outcomes with low event rates. Clinical heterogeneity both between and within studies is a relatively fixed feature of surgical trials, and this also contributed to the need for caution in interpreting results.Considering these limitations, there was uncertainty of the effect on mortality or extracorporeal support times with upper hemi-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement compared to full median sternotomy. The evidence to support a reduction in total hospital length of stay or intensive care stay was low in quality. There was also uncertainty of any difference in the rates of other, secondary outcome measures or adverse events with minimally invasive limited sternotomy approaches to aortic valve replacement.There appears to be uncertainty between minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper hemi-sternotomy and conventional aortic valve replacement via a full median sternotomy. Before widespread adoption of the minimally invasive approach can be recommended, there is a need for a well-designed and adequately powered prospective randomised controlled trial. Such a study would benefit from performing a robust cost analysis. Growing patient preference for minimally invasive techniques merits thorough quality-of-life analyses to be included as end points, as well as quantitative measures of physiological reserve.

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.

Mid-term outcomes for Endoscopic versus Open Vein Harvest: a case control study

Background

Saphenous vein remains the most common conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting with increasing uptake of minimally invasive harvesting techniques. While Endoscopic Vein Harvest (EVH) has been demonstrated to improve early morbidity compared to Open Vein Harvest (OVH), recent literature suggests that this may be at the expense of graft patency at one year and survival at three years.

Methods

We undertook a retrospective single-centre, single-surgeon, case-control study of EVH (n = 89) and OVH (n = 182). The primary endpoint was death with secondary endpoints including acute coronary syndrome, revascularisation or other major adverse cardiac events. Freedom from angina, wound complications and self-rated health status were also assessed. Where repeat angiography had been performed, this was reviewed.

Results

Both groups were well matched demographically and for peri-operative characteristics. All cause mortality was 2/89 (2%) and 11/182 (6%) in the EVH and OVH groups respectively. This was shown by Cox Log-Rank analysis to be non-significant (p = 0.65), even if adjusting for inpatient mortality (p = 0.74). There was no difference in the rates of freedom from angina (p = 1.00), re-admission (p = 0.78) or need for further anti-anginals (p = 1.00). There was a significant reduction in the incidence of leg wound infections and complications in the endoscopic group (EVH: 7%; OVH: 28%; p = 0.0008) and the skew of high patient self-rated health scores in the EVH group (61% compared to 52% in the open group) approached statistical significance (p = 0.06).

Conclusions

While aware of the limitations of this small retrospective study, we are heartened by the preliminary results and consider our data to be justification for continuing to provide patients the opportunity to have minimally invasive conduit harvest in our centre. More robust evidence is still required to elucidate the implications of endoscopic techniques on conduit patency and patient outcome, but until the results of a large, prospective and randomised trial are available, we believe we can confidently offer our patients the option and benefits of EVH.

The effect of patient sex on survival in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass surgery receiving a radial artery

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether patient sex makes a difference to in-hospital mortality and survival in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) receiving a radial artery graft.

METHODS

Analysis of consecutive patients on a validated prospective cardiac surgery database was performed for patients undergoing isolated CABG. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed for in-hospital mortality and long-term survival. A propensity analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Overall mortality was 2.1% (n = 284) for all cases, n = 13 369. Median follow-up was 7.0 (interquartile range 4.1-10.1) years. Of the cases 28.2% of males (n = 384) and 29.7% of females (n = 764) had a radial artery utilized. Univariate analysis demonstrated that in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in male patients, P < 0.001, and radial artery use was associated with increased survival in males, P < 0.0001, but not in females, P = 0.82. In male patients, multivariate analysis failed to identify the radial artery as a risk factor for in-hospital death. The radial artery was identified as a significant prognostic factor, associated with improved long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.88, P = 0.0001). Propensity analysis confirmed this finding (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.86, P < 0.0001). In female patients, multivariate analysis failed to identify the radial artery as a significant factor determining in-hospital mortality or long-term survival. Propensity analysis confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSION

Males derive a significant survival advantage if they receive a radial artery graft when undergoing isolated CABG. The radial artery makes no difference to long-term survival in female patients. Radial artery use does not affect in-hospital mortality regardless of patient sex.

External validity of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk stratification tool for deep sternal wound infection after cardiac surgery in a UK population

OBJECTIVES

Deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) is a devastating complication of cardiac surgery, with a historical incidence of 0.4-5%. Predicting which patients are at higher risk of infection may help instituting various preventive measures. Risk calculations for mortality have been used as surrogates to estimate the risk of deep sternal wound infection, with limited success. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) 2008 Risk Calculator modelled the risk of DSWI for cardiac surgical patients, but it has not been validated since its publication. We sought to assess the external validity of the STS-estimated risk of DSWI in a United Kingdom (UK) population.

METHODS

Using our prospectively captured database, we retrospectively calculated the risk of DSWI for 14 036 patients undergoing valve, coronary artery bypass grafts or combined procedures between February 2001 and March 2010. DSWI was identified according to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention definition. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was employed to test the performance of the model using the area under the ROC curve (AUROC). The calibration of the model was interrogated using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test for Goodness of Fit.

RESULTS

A total of 135 (0.95%) patients developed DSWI. Although there was a statistically significant difference in the calculated risk of patients who contracted DSWI (0.44% ± 0.01) vs those who did not (0.28% ± 0.00, P < 0.0001), the AUROC of 0.699 (95% confidence interval: 0.6522-0.7414) denoted a modest discriminatory power, with the Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit statistic (P < 0.001) suggesting poor calibration. A risk-adjusted modifier improved the calibration (P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

The STS risk calculator lacks adequate discriminatory power for estimating the isolated risk of developing deep sternal wound infection in a UK population. The discrimination is similar to the tool's validation c-statistic and may have a place in an integrated calculator.

Risk of Major Bleeding With Potent Antiplatelet Agents After an Acute Coronary Event: A Comparison of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in 5116 Consecutive Patients in Clinical Practice

Background

Major bleeding after acute coronary syndrome predicts a poor outcome but is challenging to define. The choice of antiplatelet influences bleeding risk.

Methods and Results

Major bleeding, subsequent myocardial infarction (MI), and all‐cause mortality to 1 year were compared in consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with clopidogrel (n=2491 between 2011 and 2013) and ticagrelor (n=2625 between 2012 and 2015) in 5 English hospitals. Clinical outcomes were identified from national hospital episode statistics. Bleeding and MI events were independently adjudicated by 2 experienced clinicians, blinded to drug, sequence, and year. Bleeding events were categorized using Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 to 5 and PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) criteria and MI by the Third Universal Definition. Multivariable regression analysis was used to adjust outcomes for case mix. The median age was 68 years and 34% were women. 39% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and 13% coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Clinical outcome data were 100% complete for bleeding and 99.7% for MI. No statistically significant difference was seen in crude or adjusted major bleeding for ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3–5, hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 0.90–1.68; P=0.2, PLATO major adjusted HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98–1.74; P=0.07) except in the non‐coronary artery bypass graft cohort (n=4464), where bleeding was more frequent with ticagrelor (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3–5, adjusted HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09–2.31; P=0.017; and PLATO major HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.18–2.37; P=0.004). There was no difference in crude or adjusted subsequent MI (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.87–1.64; P=0.27). Crude mortality was higher in the clopidogrel group but not after adjustment, using either Cox proportional hazards or propensity matched population (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76–1.10; P=0.21) as was the case for stroke (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52–1.32; P=0.42).

Conclusions

This observational study indicates that the apparent benefit of ticagrelor demonstrated in a clinical trial population may not be observed in the broader population encountered in clinical practice.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02484924.

Long-term survival following on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

Recent studies have once again brought into focus the long-term survival following off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) compared with conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (ONCAB). The aim of this study was to compare the long-term risk-adjusted survival rates in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using these 2 techniques.

METHODS

We undertook a propensity score-matched analysis of 10 293 patients who underwent CABG at our single institution between 2000 and 2016. A logistic regression model was fitted using 14 covariates and their 2-way interactions to calculate an estimated propensity score [area under curve (AUC) 0.69], from which 1:1 nearest neighbour matching was performed. Patient survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.

RESULTS

Of the total cohort, 8319 patients had ONCAB and 1974 had OPCAB. Prior to matching, the OPCAB group had marginally higher EuroSCORE [3.7 ± 2.7 vs 3.5 ± 3, median (interquartile range) 3 (2-5) vs 3 (2-5), P = 0.016] and significantly lower average number of grafts per patient (2.39 ± 0.72 vs 2.75 ± 0.48, P < 0.001). Post-matching distributions between OPCAB and ONCAB showed a substantial improvement in balance in preoperative patient characteristics. The 2 surgery groups differed significantly in survival (P < 0.001). OPCAB demonstrated improved long-term survival at 10 years [84.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) (82.7-86.9%) vs 75.8%, 95% CI (73.4-78.2%)] and 15 years [65.4%, 95% CI (61.4-69.6%) vs 58.5%, 95% CI (54.9-62.3%)]. Results of sensitivity analysis for 1:2 and 1:3 matched data were in concordance with these findings of survival.

CONCLUSION

At our institution, selected patients who underwent OPCAB had lower in-hospital morbidity and improved long-term survival when compared with a matched population of ONCAB patients.

Long term and disease-free survival following surgical resection of occult N2 lung cancer

Background

Despite systematic investigation with computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET)/CT, CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain imaging and supplementary investigation using endobronchial ultrasound guided biopsy (EBUS), endo-oesophageal ultrasound guided biopsy (EUS), fine needle aspiration (FNA), mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, there is an approximately 10% rate of occult N2 disease identified at pathological staging. It has been hypothesised that such occult disease, too small or inactive to be identified during pre-operative multi-modality staging, may represent low volume disease that may have equivalent survival to patients with similar stage at clinical, pre-operative assessment. We compared the long-term survival and disease-free survival of patients with the same clinical TNM stage with and without occult N2 disease.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed a database that prospectively captured information on all patients assessed and treated for lung cancer in our surgical unit. We reviewed data on patients who underwent lung cancer surgery with curative intent between January 2006 and August 2010.

Results

A total of 312 lung cancer resections were performed [mean age 68 (range, 42-86) years old and male:female ratio 1.14:1]. Occult N2 disease was identified in 28 (8.7%) of 312 patients. There was no difference in the rate of N2 disease for different tumour histological types. Five-year survival with occult N2 disease was 35.8% vs. 62.5% without. Median survival was 34 months with occult N2 disease vs. 84 months without.

Conclusions

With contemporary staging techniques, so-called occult N2 disease, even with low volume and PET non-avid disease, does not have an indolent course and should still be considered a risk factor for poorer prognosis.

Endoscopic vein harvesting

Coronary artery bypass grafting is the most common cardiac surgical procedure performed worldwide and the long saphenous vein the most common conduit for this. When performed as an open vein harvest (OVH), the incision on each leg can be up to 85cm long, making it the longest incision of any routine procedure. This confers a high degree of morbidity to the procedure. Endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) methods were popularised over two decades ago, demonstrating significant benefits over OVH in terms of leg wound complications including surgical site infections. They also appeared to hasten return to usual activities and wound healing and became popular particularly in North America. Subgroup analyses of two trials designed for other purposes created a period of uncertainty between 2009-2013 while the impact of endoscopic vein harvesting on vein graft patency and major adverse cardiac events was scrutinised. Large observational studies debunked the findings of increased mortality in the short-term, allowing practitioners and governing bodies to regain some confidence in the procedure. A well designed, adequately powered, randomised controlled trial published in 2019 also definitively demonstrated that there was no increase in death, myocardial infarction or repeat revascularisation with endoscopic vein harvest. Endoscopic vein harvest is a Class IIa indication in European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and a Class I indication in International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery (ISMICS) guidelines.

A multi-centre prospective cohort study of patients on the elective waiting list for cardiac surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

During the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, elective cardiac surgery was suspended to provide ICU beds for COVID-19 patients and those requiring urgent cardiac surgery. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of the pandemic on outcomes of patients awaiting elective cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

A multi-centre prospective cohort study.

SETTING

The elective adult cardiac surgery waiting list as of 1 March 2020 across seven UK cardiac surgical centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients on the elective adult cardiac surgery waiting list as of 1 March 2020 across seven UK cardiac surgical centres.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was surgery, percutaneous therapy or death at one year.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively on patients on the elective adult cardiac surgery waiting list as of 1 March 2020 across seven UK cardiac surgical centres. Primary outcome was surgery, percutaneous therapy or death at one year. Demographic data and outcomes were obtained from local electronic records, anonymised and submitted securely to the lead centre for analysis.

RESULTS

On 1 March 2020, there were 1099 patients on the elective waiting list for cardiac surgery. On 1 March 2021, 83% (n = 916) had met a primary outcome. Of these, 840 (92%) had surgery after a median of 195 (118-262) days on waiting list, 34 (3%) declined an offer of surgery, 23 (3%) had percutaneous intervention, 12 (1%) died, 7 (0.6%) were removed from the waiting list. The remainder of patients, 183 (17%) remained on the elective waiting list.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown, for the first time, significant delays to treatment of patients awaiting elective cardiac surgery. Although there was a low risk of mortality or urgent intervention, important unmeasured adverse outcomes such as quality of life or increased perioperative risk may be associated with prolonged waiting times.

Establishing minimally invasive cardiac surgery in a low-volume mitral surgery centre

INTRODUCTION

Despite early enthusiasm, minimally invasive cardiac surgery has had a low uptake compared with novel techniques in interventional cardiology. Steep learning curves from high-volume centres have deterred smaller units from engaging, even though low-volume centres undertake a large proportion of surgical interventions worldwide. We sought to identify the safety and experience of learning minimally invasive cardiac surgery after undertaking a structured fellowship at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, a low-volume centre.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of outcomes for all consecutive minimally invasive cardiac surgery procedures performed via a right mini-thoracotomy at our institution between 2007 and 2017 was undertaken. Clinical outcomes included death, conversion to sternotomy, stroke, renal failure and other organ support. Cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic cross-clamp times and learning cumulative sum sequential probability method curves were also assessed to determine how safely the procedure was adopted.

RESULTS

A total of 316 patients were operated on for mitral, tricuspid, atrial fibrillation, septal defects or other conditions. The mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score was 7.0 (± 8.5). Conversion to sternotomy occurred in 12 patients (3.8%) and in-hospital mortality was 7 (2.2%). None of the converted patients died. The learning curves showed an accelerated process of adoption, similar to reference figures from a high-volume German centre.

DISCUSSION

It is possible for low-volume cardiac surgical centres to undertake minimally invasive surgical programmes with good outcomes and short learning curves. Despite technical complexities, with a team approach, the learning curve can be navigated safely.

Minimally invasive versus conventional sternotomy for Mitral valve repair: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (UK Mini Mitral)

INTRODUCTION

Numbers of patients undergoing mitral valve repair (MVr) surgery for severe mitral regurgitation have grown and will continue to rise. MVr is routinely performed via median sternotomy; however, there is a move towards less invasive surgical approaches.There is debate within the clinical and National Health Service (NHS) commissioning community about widespread adoption of minimally invasive MVr surgery in the absence of robust research evidence; implementation requires investment in staff and infrastructure.The UK Mini Mitral trial will provide definitive evidence comparing patient, NHS and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing MVr surgery. It will establish the best surgical approach for MVr, setting a standard against which emerging percutaneous techniques can be measured. Findings will inform optimisation of cost-effective practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

UK Mini Mitral is a multicentre, expertise based randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive thoracoscopically guided right minithoracotomy versus conventional sternotomy for MVr. The trial is taking place in NHS cardiothoracic centres in the UK with established minimally invasive mitral valve surgery programmes. In each centre, consenting and eligible patients are randomised to receive surgery performed by consultant surgeons who meet protocol-defined surgical expertise criteria. Patients are followed for 1 year, and consent to longer term follow-up.Primary outcome is physical functioning 12 weeks following surgery, measured by change in Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2) physical functioning scale. Early and 1 year echo data will be reported by a core laboratory. Estimates of key clinical and health economic outcomes will be reported up to 5 years.The primary economic outcome is cost effectiveness, measured as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained over 52 weeks following index surgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

A favourable opinion was given by Wales REC 6 (16/WA/0156). Trial findings will be disseminated to patients, clinicians, commissioning groups and through peer reviewed publication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13930454.