Comparative study of left vertebral artery revascularization in patients with and without aberrant left vertebral anatomy.

OBJECTIVE: Left vertebral artery revascularization is indicated in surgery involving zone 2 of the aortic arch and is typically accomplished indirectly via subclavian artery revascularization. For aberrant left vertebral anatomy, direct revascularization is indicated. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of direct vertebral artery revascularization with indirect subclavian artery revascularization for treating aortic arch pathology and to identify predictors of mortality. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single tertiary hospital, including patients who underwent open or endovascular vertebral artery revascularization from 2005 to 2022. Those who underwent direct vertebral revascularization were compared with those who were indirectly revascularized via subclavian artery revascularization. The outcomes of interest were a composite outcome (any of death, stroke, nerve injury, and thrombosis) and mortality. Univariate logistic regression models were fitted to quantify the strength of differences between the direct and indirect revascularization cohorts. Cox regression was used to identify mortality predictors. RESULTS: Of 143 patients who underwent vertebral artery revascularization, 21 (14.7%) had a vertebral artery originating from the aortic arch. The median length of stay was 10 days (interquartile range, 6-20 days), and demographics were similar between cohorts. The incidence of composite outcome, bypass thrombosis, and hoarseness was significantly higher in the direct group (42.9% vs 18.0%, P = .019; 33.3% vs 0.8%, P < .0001; 57.1% vs 18.0%, P < .001, respectively). The direct group was approximately three times more likely to experience the composite outcome (odds ratio, 3.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.28, 9.08); similarly, this group was approximately six times more likely to have hoarseness (odds ratio, 5.88; 95% confidence interval, 2.21, 15.62). There was no significant difference in mortality rates at 30 days, 1, 3, 5, and 10 years of follow-up. Age, length of hospital stay, and congestive heart failure were identified as predictors of higher mortality. After adjusting for these covariates, the group itself was not an independent predictor of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Direct vertebral revascularization was associated with higher rates of composite outcome (death, stroke, nerve injury, and thrombosis), bypass thrombosis and hoarseness. Patients with aberrant vertebral anatomy are at higher risks of these complications compared with patients with standard arch anatomy. However, after adjusting for other factors, mortality rates were not significantly different between the groups.

Futility considerations in surgical ethics.

The topic of futility has been intensely debated in bioethical discourse. Surgical futility encompasses considerations across a continuum of care, from decision-making during initial triage, to the choice to operate or refrain from operating on the critically ill, to withdrawal of life-supporting care. Determinations over futility may result in discord between providers and patients or their families, who might insist that treatment be provided at all costs to sustain life. In this manuscript, we will explore some of the possible sources for and manifestations of these disputes, and describe approaches by which to resolve them. Part I will briefly address some of the reasons that families ask for life-sustaining measures against medical advice in the surgical setting. These include variable determinations of both the quality of life and the inherent value of life (stemming from religious, cultural, and personal beliefs). Part II will detail some general instances in which physicians and surgeons can override requests to provide futile treatment, namely: instances of resource scarcity, interventions which carry a high probability of harm, and those that carry significant moral distress. To conclude, Part III will provide concrete guidelines for navigating futility, making an argument for individual case-based communication models in surgical decision-making.

Early effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the North American cardiothoracic surgery job market.

Background: The present study aims to report the early effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the cardiothoracic surgery job market in North America. Methods: The Cardiothoracic Surgery Network (CTSNet) job market database was queried, and patterns from January to May for 2019 versus January to May 2020 were compared for trends in job postings and job seekers. Results: Our study is comprised of 395 cardiothoracic surgery job postings, of which 98% were positions located in North America and 63% were academic. The negative impact of the pandemic on the cardiothoracic surgery job market was greatest in the cardiothoracic/cardiovascular combined subspecialty, followed by congenital and adult cardiac surgery, whereas general thoracic surgery experienced an increase in proportion of jobs available. Despite an increase in views per job posted in 2020 vs. 2019 (532 vs. 290), employer views of job seeker curriculum vitae declined over the same time period in 2020 (January, 380 views/month to May, 3 views/month) compared to 2019 (January, 100 views/month to May, 54 views/month). Conclusions: An analysis of job postings from CTSNet suggests a decline in job availability in the North American cardiothoracic surgical job market following declaration of the pandemic with acknowledgement that there is month to month variability and a supply-demand mismatch. The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on our field, and the ultimate consequences remain unknown.

Novel Neurotechnological Interventions for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: Physician Perspectives.

This qualitative study investigated factors that guide physicians' choices for minimally invasive and neuromodulatory interventions as alternatives to conventional surgery or medical management for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy. North American physicians were recruited to one of 4 focus groups at national conferences. Discussions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. A pragmatic neuroethics framework was applied to interpret results. Discussions revealed 2 major thematic branches: (1) clinical decision making and (2) ethical considerations. Under clinical decision making, physicians emphasized scientific evidence and patient candidacy when assessing neurotechnologies for patients. Ongoing seizures without intervention was important for safety and neurodevelopment. Under ethical considerations, resource allocation, among other financial considerations for technology adoption, were considerable sources of pressure on decision making. Access to neurotechnology was a salient theme differentiating Canadian and American contexts. When assessing novel neurotechnological interventions for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, physicians balance clinical and ethical factors to guide decision making and best practice.