Training in Advanced Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Objective. The learning curve of coronary artery bypass grafting with multiple arterial grafting and without the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (off‐pump) is perceived as an advanced subspeciality associated with increased surgical risk. We compared the trends and early clinical outcomes between trainees and consultants as the first operator in the United Kingdom. Methods. All patients who underwent elective or urgent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting from 1996 to 2019 were extracted from the National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit database. Trends and early clinical outcomes between trainees and consultants as the first operator were compared in the whole cohort and after propensity score matching. Results. Of the total coronary artery bypass graft procedures, trainees performed 24.39% (n = 79759/327025). Trainees performed 27.10% (63934/235920) on‐pump without multiple arterial graft procedures compared to consultants. The consultants had a shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (82.81 (SD: 35.36) vs 86.21 (SD: 30.07) minutes, p < 0.001) and aortic cross‐clamp time (48.05 (SD: 22.46) vs 50.66 (SD: 19.49) minutes, p < 0.001). However, consultants had a higher mortality (1.6% vs 1.0%, p < 0.001) and incidence of postoperative dialysis (2.1% vs 1.5%, p < 0.001). Trainees performed 16.78% (8089/48220) multiple arterial graft procedures, with no differences compared with consultants for in‐hospital mortality (1.0% vs 0.9%, p = 0.42), cerebral vascular accident (transient ischaemic attack (0.5% vs 0.5%) and permanent stroke (0.6% vs 0.4%), p = 0.33), return to theatre (4.2% vs 4.47%, p = 0.089), postoperative renal dialysis (1.4% vs 1.1%, p = 0.076), and deep sternal wound infection (0.6% vs 0.6%, p = 0.87). Trainees performed 17.17% (8661/41778) off‐pump cases. Consultants had a higher in‐hospital mortality (1.2% vs 0.9%, p = 0.045) with no differences in cerebral vascular accident (transient ischaemic attack (0.2% vs 0.3%) and permanent stroke (0.4% vs 0.4%), p = 0.27), return to theatre (3.8% vs 3.9%, p = 0.69), postoperative renal dialysis (2.0% vs 1.6%, p = 0.059), and deep sternal wound infection (1.0% vs 0.8%, p = 0.66). Conclusion. Trainees in the United Kingdom have adequate exposure to advanced coronary surgery without compromising patients’ safety.