A comprehensive qualitative investigation of the factors that affect surgical site infection prevention in cardiac surgery in England using observations and interviews.

BACKGROUND: Interview and questionnaire studies have identified barriers and challenges to preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) by focusing on compliance with recommendations and care bundles using interviews, questionnaires and expert panels. This study proposes a more comprehensive investigation by using observations of clinical practice plus interviews which will enable a wider focus. AIM: To comprehensively identify the factors which affect SSI prevention using cardiac surgery as an exemplar. METHODS: The study consisted of 130 h of observed clinical practice followed by individual semi-structured interviews with 16 surgeons, anaesthetists, theatre staff, and nurses at four cardiac centres in England. Data were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: The factors were complex and existed at the level of the intervention, the individual, the team, the organization, and even the wider society. Factors included: the attributes of the intervention; the relationship between evidence, personal beliefs, and perceived risk; power and hierarchy; leadership and culture; resources; infrastructure; supplies; organization and planning; patient engagement and power; hospital administration; workforce shortages; COVID-19 pandemic; 'Brexit'; and the war in Ukraine. CONCLUSION: This is one of the first studies to provide a comprehensive overview of the factors affecting SSI prevention. The factors are complex and need to be fully understood when trying to reduce SSIs. A strong evidence base was insufficient to ensure implementation of an intervention.

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.

Long-term survival after endoscopic vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic vein harvest is the technique of choice in North America, where it constitutes 80% of conduit harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting. The UK has much lower rates, despite demonstrable perioperative benefits. Concerns about patency and long-term survival are often cited as reasons for poor uptake and evidence in the literature thus far has only addressed mid-term outcomes. We sought to identify the long-term survival of patients undergoing endoscopic vein harvest compared with a contemporaneous cohort of open vein harvest. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting at a single institution between 2007 and 2017. All-cause long-term mortality was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank analysis. RESULTS: A total of 7,527 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (1,029 receiving endoscopic vein harvest) were studied. The groups were well matched for preoperative characteristics, except that there were more patients with triple-vessel disease and good left-ventricular function in the endoscopic vein harvest group. There was no statistically significant difference in the long-term survival (p = 0.23). At five years (median follow-up), survival was 86.1% (95% confidence interval 85.3-87.0) in the open vein harvest group compared with 85.5% (95% confidence interval 82.8-88.2) in the endoscopic vein harvest group. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Endoscopic vein harvest does not affect long-term survival in an unselected population. The contraindications for minimally invasive vein harvest in coronary artery bypass grafting are increasingly diminishing.

CT scan does not predict optimal debulking in stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer: a multicentre validation study.

Our aim was to design and validate a model of CT findings that predict suboptimal cytoreduction in primary surgery (PS) for Stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We performed a retrospective review of preoperative CT scans of patients undergoing PS for EOC in a cancer centre in London, UK, between November 1995 and October 2003 (n = 91). Radiological features predictive of suboptimal cytoreduction were identified and the model tested in a second cohort undergoing PS in Manchester, June 2005 - March 2007 (n = 35). In the London cohort, liver surface disease and infrarenal para-aortic lymph node involvement predicted suboptimal cytoreduction with 80% accuracy. Accuracy of these predictors dropped to 63% when applied to the Manchester cohort. We concluded that CT prediction of suboptimal cytoreduction is unreliable and may not be reproducible. In the absence of favourable data from larger, prospective trials, it should not be used to guide management.