Background: New-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (PoAF) is one of the most frequent yet serious complications following cardiac surgery. Long-term consequences have not been thoroughly investigated, and studies have included different cardiac operations. The objectives were to report the incidence and short- and long-term outcomes in patients with PoAF after mitral valve surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 1401 patients who underwent mitral valve surgery from 2009 to 2020. Patients were grouped according to the occurrence of PoAF (n = 236) and the nonoccurrence of PoAF (n = 1165). Long-term outcomes included mortality, heart failure rehospitalization, stroke, and mitral valve reinterventions. Results: The overall incidence of PoAF was 16.8%. PoAF was associated with higher rates of operative mortality (8.9% vs. 3.3%, p < 0.001), stroke (6.9% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001), and dialysis (13.6% vs. 3.5%, p < 0.001). ICU and hospital stays were significantly longer in patients with PoAF (p < 0.001 for both). PoAF was significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality [HR: 1.613 (95% CI: 1.048–2.483); p = 0.03], heart failure rehospitalization [HR: 2.156 (95% CI: 1.276–3.642); p = 0.004], and stroke [HR: 2.722 (95% CI: 1.321–5.607); p = 0.007]. However, PoAF was not associated with increased mitral valve reinterventions [HR: 0.938 (95% CI: 0.422–2.087); p = 0.875]. Conclusions: Atrial fibrillation after mitral valve surgery is a common complication, with an increased risk of operative mortality. PoAF was associated with lower long-term survival, increased heart failure rehospitalization, and stroke risk. Future studies are needed to evaluate strategies that can be implemented to improve the outcomes of these patients.

Introduction: The privacy and security of healthcare information are essential to maintaining good patient-physician relationships, protecting individuals’ interests, and respecting their dignity and worth. This study assessed healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) knowledge, awareness, and attitudes toward patients’ data privacy and security in clinical research. Methods: The study consisted of a cross-sectional survey in which 108 HCPs’ awareness and knowledge of HIPAA and NCBE rules and regulations were measured, followed by an in-depth semistructured interview to explore HCPs’ attitudes and perspectives. The study was conducted between January and May 2022. Results: Most participants agreed that the IRB/REC rules and regulations strengthened participants’ trust in the researchers, enhanced confidentiality, and improved the privacy and security of patients’ information. HIPPA knowledge was affected by prior participation in research (β: 1.16; p = 0.001) and NCBE knowledge by working on a research project (β: 0.87; p = 0.001), years of work experience (β: 0.35; p = 0.003), and age (β: −0.28; p = 0.04). Participants believed that the nature of research, involvement of inexperienced persons, and human errors could affect patients’ privacy and security in clinical research, which could be improved by limiting the number of personnel who access the data, continuous education, and sending reminders about the rules and regulations. Conclusions: Patients’ data privacy and security remain vital to clinical research. HCPs realize the role of IRB/REC to maintain data privacy and security. Enrollment of HCPs in clinical research and continuous education could improve HCP knowledge of regulatory rules.