by
Sophie W Gao;
Jessica Forcillo;
Amelia Claire Watkins;
Mara B Antonoff;
Jessica GY Luc;
Jennifer CY Chung;
Laura Ritchie;
Rachel Eikelboom;
Subhadra Shashidharan;
Michiko Maruyama;
Richard P Whitlock;
Maral Ouzounian;
Emilie P Belley-Côté
In 1960, Dr Nina Starr Braunwald became the first woman to perform open heart surgery. Sixty years later, despite the fact that women outnumbered men in American medical school in 2017, men still dominate the field of cardiac surgery. Women surgeons remain underrepresented in cardiac surgery; 11% of practicing cardiac surgeons in Canada were women in 2015, and 6% of practicing adult cardiac surgeons in the US were women in 2019. Although women remain a minority in other surgical specialties also, cardiothoracic surgery remains one of the most unevenly–gender distributed specialties. Why are there so few women cardiac surgeons, and why does it matter? Evidence is emerging regarding the benefits of diversity for a variety of industries, including healthcare. In order to attract and retain the best talent, we must make the cardiac surgery environment more diverse, equitable, and inclusive. Some causes of perpetuation of the gender gap have been documented in the literature—these include uneven compensation and career advancement opportunities, outdated views on family dynamics, and disproportionate scrutiny of women surgeons, causing additional workplace frictions for women. Diversity is an organizational strength, and gender-diverse institutions are more likely to outperform their non-gender-diverse counterparts. Modifiable issues perpetuate the gender gap, and mentorship is key in helping attract, develop, and retain the best and brightest within cardiac surgery. Facilitating mentorship opportunities is key to reducing barriers and bridging the gap.
Objective: Surgery for heart defects in children with trisomy 13 or 18 is controversial. We analyzed our 20-year experience. Methods: Since 2002, we performed 21 operations in 19 children with trisomy 13 (n = 8) or trisomy 18 (n = 11). Age at operation was 4 days to 12 years (median, 154 days). Principal diagnosis was ventricular septal defect in 10 patients, tetralogy of Fallot in 7 patients, arch hypoplasia in 1 patient, and patent ductus arteriosus in 1 patient. Results: The initial operation was ventricular septal defect closure in 9 patients, tetralogy of Fallot repair in 7 patients, pulmonary artery banding in 1 patient, patent ductus arteriosus ligation in 1 patient, and aortic arch/coarctation repair in 1 patient. There were no operative or hospital deaths. Median postoperative intensive care and hospital stays were 189 hours (interquartile range, 70-548) and 14 days (interquartile range, 8.0-37.0), respectively, compared with median hospital stays in our center for ventricular septal defect repair of 4.0 days and tetralogy of Fallot repair of 5.0 days. On median follow-up of 17.4 months (interquartile range, 6.0-68), 1 patient was lost to follow-up after 5 months. Two patients had reoperation without mortality. There have been 5 late deaths (4 with trisomy 18, 1 with trisomy 13) predominately due to respiratory failure from 4 months to 9.4 years postoperatively. Five-year survival was 66.6% compared with 24% in a group of unoperated patients with trisomy 13 or 18. Conclusions: Cardiac operation with an emphasis on complete repair can be performed safely in carefully selected children with trisomy 13 or trisomy 18. Hospital resource use measured by postoperative intensive care and hospital stays is considerably greater compared with nontrisomy 13 and 18.
We present an adolescent male with a single intracardiac mass and pulmonary emboli, complicated by peripheral venous thrombosis and subsequent development of pulmonary pseudoaneurysms, leading to diagnosis of Hughes-Stovin syndrome. Remission was achieved with cyclophosphamide, corticosteroids, and pseudoaneurysm resection and maintained with infliximab and methotrexate.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that narrowing the landing zone using commercially available endografts would enable transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement (TPVR) using commercially available transcatheter heart valves. Background: TPVR is challenging in an outsized native or patch-repaired right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT). Downsizing the RVOT for TPVR is currently possible only using investigational devices. In patients ineligible because of excessive RVOT size, TPVR landing zones were created using commercially available endografts. Methods: Consecutive patients with native or patch-repaired RVOTs and high or prohibitive surgical risk were reviewed, and this report describes the authors’ experience with endograft-facilitated TPVR (EF-TPVR) offered to patients ineligible for investigational or commercial devices. All EF-TPVR patients were surgery ineligible, with symptomatic, severe pulmonary insufficiency, enlarged RVOTs, and severe right ventricular (RV) enlargement (>150 ml/m2). TPVR and surgical pulmonary valve replacement (SPVR) were compared in patients with less severe RV enlargement. Results: Fourteen patients had large RVOTs unsuitable for conventional TPVR; 6 patients (1 surgery ineligible) received investigational devices, and 8 otherwise ineligible patients underwent compassionate EF-TPVR (n = 5 with tetralogy of Fallot). Three strategies were applied on the basis of progressively larger RVOT size: single-barrel, in situ fenestrated, and double-barrel endografts as required to anchor 1 (single-barrel and fenestrated) or 2 (double-barrel) transcatheter heart valves. All were technically successful, without procedure-related, 30-day, or in-hospital deaths. Two late complications (stent obstruction and embolization) were treated percutaneously. One patient died of ventricular tachycardia 36 days after EF-TPVR. Compared with 48 SPVRs, RV enlargement was greater, but 30-day and 1-year mortality and readmission were no different. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient was lower after EF-TPVR (3.8 ± 0.8 mm Hg vs. 10.7 ± 4.1 mm Hg; p < 0.001; 30 days). More than mild pulmonary insufficiency was equivalent in both (EF-TPVR 0.0% [n = 0 of 8] vs. SPVR 4.3% [n = 1 of 43]; p = 1.00; 30 days). Conclusions: EF-TPVR may be an alternative for patients with pulmonic insufficiency and enlarged RVOTs ineligible for other therapies.