Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lack of scientific data on the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) during the COVID-19 pandemic has made clinical decision making challenging. This survey aimed to appraise MICS activity in UK cardiac units and establish a consensus amongst front-line MICS surgeons regarding standard best MICS practise during the pandemic.
METHODS: An online questionnaire was designed through the 'googleforms' platform. Responses were received from 24 out of 28 surgeons approached (85.7%), across 17 cardiac units.
RESULTS: There was a strong consensus against a higher risk of conversion from minimally invasive to full sternotomy (92%; n = 22) nor there is increased infection (79%; n = 19) or bleeding (96%; n = 23) with MICS compared to full sternotomy during the pandemic. The majority of respondents (67%; n = 16) felt that it was safe to perform MICS during COVID-19, and that it should not be halted (71%; n = 17). London cardiac units experienced a decrease in MICS (60%; n = 6), whereas non-London units saw no reduction. All London MICS surgeons wore an FP3 mask compared to 62% (n = 8) of non-London MICS surgeons, 23% (n = 3) of which only wore a surgical mask. London MICS surgeons felt that routine double gloving should be done (60%; n = 6) whereas non-London MICS surgeons held a strong consensus that it should not (92%; n = 12).
CONCLUSION: Whilst more robust evidence on the effect of COVID-19 on MICS is awaited, this survey provides interesting insights for clinical decision-making regarding MICS and aids to facilitate the development of standardised MICS guidelines for an effective response during future pandemics.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2676591211029452 |
| Journal | Perfusion |
| Early online date | 10 Jul 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 10 Jul 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The British Heart Foundation, Cardiovascular theme of NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, supported this work. The funders played no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2021.
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Sage at https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591211029452 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.