Experience With the Cardiac Surgery Simulation Curriculum: Results of the Resident and Faculty Survey

BACKGROUND: The Cardiac Surgery Simulation Curriculum was developed at 8 institutions from 2010 to 2013. A total of 27 residents were trained by 18 faculty members. A survey was conducted to gain insight into the initial experience. METHODS: Residents and faculty were sent a 72- and 68-question survey, respectively. In addition to demographic information, participants reported their view of the overall impact of the curriculum. Focused investigation into each of the 6 modules was obtained. Participants evaluated the value of the specific simulators used. Institutional biases regarding implementation of the curriculum were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty (74%) residents and 14 (78%) faculty responded. The majority (70%) of residents completed this training in their first and second year of traditional-track programs. The modules were well regarded with no respondents having an unfavorable view. Both residents and faculty found low, moderate, and high fidelity simulators to be extremely useful, with particular emphasis on utility of high fidelity components. The vast majority of residents (85%) and faculty (100%) felt more comfortable in the resident skill set and performance in the operating room. Simulation of rare adverse events allowed for development of multidisciplinary teams to address them. At most institutions, the conduct of this curriculum took precedence over clinical obligations (64%). CONCLUSIONS: The Cardiac Surgery Simulation Curriculum was implemented with robust adoption among the investigating centers. Both residents and faculty viewed the modules favorably. Using this curriculum, participants indicated an improvement in resident technical skills and were enthusiastic about training in adverse events and crisis management

Simulation-Based Training in Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND: Operating room surgical training has significant limitations. This study hypothesized that some skills could be learned efficiently and safely by using simulation with component task training, deliberate practice, progressive complexity, and experienced coaching to produce safer cardiac surgeons. METHODS: Training modules included cardiopulmonary bypass, coronary artery bypass grafting, aortic valve replacement, massive air embolism, acute intraoperative aortic dissection, and sudden deterioration in cardiac function. Using deliberate practice, first-year cardiothoracic surgical residents at eight institutions were trained and evaluated on component tasks for each module and later on full cardiac operations. Evaluations were based on five-point Likert-scale tools indexed by module, session, task items, and repetitions. Statistical analyses relied on generalized linear model estimation and corresponding confidence intervals. RESULTS: The 27 residents who participated demonstrated improvement with practice repetitions resulting in excellent final scores per module (mean ± two SEs): cardiopulmonary bypass, 4.80 ± 0.12; coronary artery bypass grafting, 4.41 ± 0.19; aortic valve replacement, 4.51 ± 0.20; massive air embolism, 0.68 ± 0.14; acute intraoperative aortic dissection, 4.52 ± 0.17; and sudden deterioration in cardiac function, 4.76 ± 0.16. The transient detrimental effect of time away from training was also evident. CONCLUSIONS: Overall performance in component tasks and complete cardiac surgical procedures improved during simulation-based training. Simulation-based training imparts skill sets for management of adverse events and can help produce safer surgeons

Correction: Epidemiology and outcomes of early-onset AKI in COVID-19-related ARDS in comparison with non-COVID-19-related ARDS: insights from two prospective global cohort studies (Critical Care, (2023), 27, 1, (3), 10.1186/s13054-022-04294-5)

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified that the collaborating authors part of the collaborating author group CCCC Consortium was missing. The collaborating author group is available and included as Additional file 1 in this article

Early short course of neuromuscular blocking agents in patients with COVID-19 ARDS: a propensity score analysis

Background: The role of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not fully elucidated. Therefore, we aimed to investigate in COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS the impact of early use of NMBAs on 90-day mortality, through propensity score (PS) matching analysis. Methods: We analyzed a convenience sample of patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, admitted to 244 intensive care units within the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, from February 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021. Patients undergoing at least 2 days and up to 3 consecutive days of NMBAs (NMBA treatment), within 48 h from commencement of IMV were compared with subjects who did not receive NMBAs or only upon commencement of IMV (control). The primary objective in the PS-matched cohort was comparison between groups in 90-day in-hospital mortality, assessed through Cox proportional hazard modeling. Secondary objectives were comparisons in the numbers of ventilator-free days (VFD) between day 1 and day 28 and between day 1 and 90 through competing risk regression. Results: Data from 1953 patients were included. After propensity score matching, 210 cases from each group were well matched. In the PS-matched cohort, mean (± SD) age was 60.3 ± 13.2 years and 296 (70.5%) were male and the most common comorbidities were hypertension (56.9%), obesity (41.1%), and diabetes (30.0%). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death at 90 days in the NMBA treatment vs control group was 1.12 (95% CI 0.79, 1.59, p = 0.534). After adjustment for smoking habit and critical therapeutic covariates, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI 0.72, 1.61, p = 0.729). At 28 days, VFD were 16 (IQR 0–25) and 25 (IQR 7–26) in the NMBA treatment and control groups, respectively (sub-hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.67, 1.00, p = 0.055). At 90 days, VFD were 77 (IQR 0–87) and 87 (IQR 0–88) (sub-hazard ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.69, 1.07; p = 0.177). Conclusions: In patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, short course of NMBA treatment, applied early, did not significantly improve 90-day mortality and VFD. In the absence of definitive data from clinical trials, NMBAs should be indicated cautiously in this setting