ABSTRACT Introduction: The primary aim of this systematic review is to provide perioperative strategies to help restore or preserve cardiovascular services under threat from financial and personnel constraints imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/CCTR, and Google Scholar were systematically searched using the search terms “(cardiac OR cardiology OR cardiothoracic OR surgery) AND (COVID-19 or coronavirus OR SARS-CoV-2 OR 2019-nCoV OR 2019 novel coronavirus OR pandemic)”. Additionally, the webpages of relevant medical societies, including the World Federation Society of Anesthesiologists, the Cardiothoracic Surgery Network, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, were screened for relevant information. Results: Whereas cardiac surgery and cardiology practices were reduced by 50-75% during the pandemic, mortality of patients with COVID-19 increased significantly. Healthcare workers are among those at high risk of infection with COVID-19. Conclusion: Hospitals must provide maximum protective equipment and training on how to use it to healthcare workers for their mutual protection. Triage management of patients — which accounts for patient’s clinical status and risk-factor profile relatable to which services are available during the COVID-19 pandemic — is recommended. A strict reorganization of the hospital resources including preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative detailed protective measures is necessary to reduce probability of vector contamination, to protect patients and the cardiovascular teams, and to permit safe resumption of cardiological and cardiac surgical activity.

Abstract Introduction: To support the development of practices and guidelines that might help to reduce adverse events related to human factors, we aimed to study the response and perception by members of a cardiovascular surgery team of various error-driven or adverse features that might arise in the operating room (OR). Methods: A previously validated Disruptions in Surgery Index (DiSI) questionnaire was completed by individuals working together in a cardiovascular surgical unit. Results were submitted to reliability analysis by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn’s post-test were performed to estimate differences in perceptions of adverse events or outcomes between the groups (surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, and technicians). P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients showed consistency within the recommended range for all disruption types assessed in DiSI: an individual’s skill (0.85), OR environment (0.88), communication (0.81), situational awareness (0.92), patient-related disruption (0.89), team cohesion (0.83), and organizational disruption (0.83). Nurses (27.4%) demonstrated significantly higher perception of disruptions than surgeons (25.4%), anesthetists (23.3%), and technicians (23.0%) (P=0.005). Study participants were more observant of their colleagues’ disruptive behaviors than their own (P=0.0001). Conclusion: Our results revealed that there is a tendency among participants to hold a positive self-perception position. DiSI appears to be a reliable and useful tool to assess surgical disruptions in cardiovascular OR teams, identifying negative features that might imperil teamwork and safety in the OR. And human factors training interventions are available to develop team skills and improve safety and efficiency in the cardiovascular OR.