Composition of the surgical team in aortic arch surgery—a risk factor analysis
Tim Berger, Maximilian Kreibich, Bartosz Rylski, David Schibilsky, Jan‐Steffen Pooth, Albi Fagu, Emmanuel Zimmer, Clarence Pingpoh, Friedhelm Beyersdorf, Martin Czerny, Matthias Siepe
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyse the influence of varying experiences within each surgical team to identify team-related risk factors on clinical outcomes after total aortic arch replacement. METHODS: Each surgeon was rated from 1 to 5, and a surgical team's score was calculated (operating surgeon + assisting surgeon = team score) by relying on each member's experience. A composite end point (mortality, stroke or spinal cord injury) was defined. RESULTS: Total aortic arch replacement was performed in 264 patients by 19 cardiovascular surgeons. Analysis revealed that the composite end point was attained more frequently when the team score was <7 (n = 23; 29%) than >7 (n = 35; 19%) (P = 0.015). There was a significant difference depending on the surgeon's experience [3 = 23 (35%); 4 = 9 (22%); 5 = 26 (17%); P = 0.008] and whether he was equally experienced (n = 9, 45%) or not as the assisting surgeon (n = 49, 20%; P = 0.015). Logistic regression revealed age >70 years [OR 2.93 (1.52-5.66); P = 0.001], previous stroke [OR 3.02 (1.36-6.70); P = 0.007], acute type A aortic dissection [OR 2.58 (1.08-6.13); P = 0.033], previous acute kidney injury [OR 2.27 (1.01-5.14); P = 0.049] and 2 surgeons with the same experience [OR 4.01 (1.47-10.96); P = 0.007] as predictors for the composite end point. CONCLUSIONS: Total aortic arch replacement is equally safe whether an experienced surgeon carries it out or assists the procedure. A less experienced team may raise the risk for postoperative complications. Our data suggest an association of equally experienced surgeons in a team with worse outcomes than teams possessing different experience levels.