Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research has demonstrated equivalent patient safety outcomes for various cardiac procedures when the primary surgeon was a supervised trainee. However, cardiac surgery cases have become more complex, and the Canadian cardiac surgery education model has undergone some changes. We sought to compare patient safety and efficiency of aortic valve replacement (AVR) between Canadian patients treated by senior cardiac trainees and those treated by certified cardiac surgeons. METHODS: We completed a single-centre, case-matched, prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed study of AVR. Patients were matched between trainees and consultants for age, sex, New York Heart Association and Canadian Cardiovascular Society status, urgency of operation and diabetes status. RESULTS: We analyzed 1102 procedures: 624 isolated AVRs and 478 AVRs with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). For isolated AVR, there was no significant difference in 30-d mortality (p = 0.13) or in major adverse events (p = 0.38) between the groups. In the AVR+CABG group, there was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (p = 0.10) or in the rates of major adverse events (p = 0.37) between the groups. Secondary outcomes (hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay, valve size and type) did not differ significantly between the groups for isolated AVR or AVR+CABG. CONCLUSION: Despite a higher-risk patient population and changes in the cardiac surgery training model, it appears that outcomes are not negatively affected when a senior trainee acts as the primary surgeon in cases of AVR.