Key result
Cardiac surgery performed by senior-level residents was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality compared to staff surgeons (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.75-1.58; P=0.66).
Why the study?
Does supervised cardiac surgery performed by residents worsen short- and long-term clinical outcomes compared to staff surgeons in patients undergoing CABG or AVR?
Cohort (n=6,931)
No
Does supervised cardiac surgery performed by residents worsen short- and long-term clinical outcomes compared to staff surgeons in patients undergoing CABG or AVR?
Odds Ratio: 1.09 (95% CI 0.75–1.58)
p-value: p=0.66
Cardiac surgery performed by supervised senior residents is safe and yields equivalent short- and long-term clinical outcomes compared to cases performed by staff surgeons.
Supervised senior residents may perform CABG/AVR without excess mortality; leaves open generalizability to junior trainees and causal effects.
BACKGROUND: We investigated the association between trainees performing supervised operations and late outcomes of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were prospectively collected on patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery, aortic valve replacement, or a combination of these between 1998 and 2005 at the Maritime Heart Center, Halifax, Canada. In-hospital mortality and a composite outcome of in-hospital mortality, stroke, bleeding, intra-aortic balloon pump insertion, renal failure, and sternal infection was compared between teaching (n=1054) and nonteaching cases (n=5877). Late survival and cardiovascular hospital readmissions were also examined. To adjust for baseline risk disparities, we used logistic regression for dichotomous in-hospital outcomes and Cox proportional hazards regression for survival data. Resident cases were significantly more likely to have high-risk features such as depressed ventricular function, redo operation, and urgent or emergent procedure. Resident as primary operator was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.58; P=0.66) or with the composite outcome (OR, 1.01; 95%, CI 0.82 to 1.26; P=0.90). The Kaplan-Meier event-free survival of the 2 groups was equivalent at 1, 3, and 5 years (log-rank P=0.06). By Cox regression, resident cases were not associated with late death or cardiovascular rehospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.17; P=0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Cases performed by senior-level cardiac surgery residents were more likely to have greater acuity and complexity than staff surgeon-performed cases. However, clinical outcomes were similar in the short- and long-term. Allowing residents to perform cardiac surgery is not associated with adverse patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stoica et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in Cardiac surgery (n=6,931). Supervised operations performed by surgeons-in-training (residents) vs. Nonteaching cases (staff surgeon-performed) was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.58, p=0.66). Cardiac surgery performed by senior-level residents was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality compared to staff surgeons (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.75-1.58; P=0.66).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: