01Cardiovascular & Thoracic Surgery
Rahul R. Handa, MD
Founder & CEOOperative strategy, anatomy, surgical feasibility, and the questions that belong in a cardiac-surgery discussion.
Read physician profileCLINICAL ADVISORY
Complex cardiac decisions deserve more than one clinical lens.
WHITEGLOVEMD brings cardiac surgery and cardiology perspectives around the same record—then adds narrower cardiovascular expertise when the question calls for it.
- 2
- primary specialty perspectives
- 1
- co-signed patient-facing report
- Case-led
- additional specialty context
HEART TEAM / 01ONE COMPLETE RECORD
CARDIAC SURGERY
CARDIOLOGYREVIEWED FROM BOTH SIDESIndication · Anatomy · Risk · Options
WHITEGLOVE Heart TeamYOUR RECORD / THEIR PERSPECTIVES
Cardiac surgeryStructural & interventional cardiologyAortic surgeryCardiac imagingElectrophysiologyVascular surgery
THE MODEL
One record.
The right specialties around it.
A surgical recommendation can touch anatomy, imaging, rhythm, catheter-based options, operative technique, and the patient’s overall risk. The review is designed to place the relevant perspectives beside one another without pretending every case needs every specialty.
See how a review worksCLINICAL PERSPECTIVES
Specialists who see different parts of the decision.
Participation is case-specific. Titles below reflect each physician’s verified clinical specialty and, when relevant, a current WHITEGLOVEMD leadership role.
0102Structural & Interventional Cardiology
Sandeep M. Patel, MD
Coronary, valve, and catheter-based pathways viewed from the cardiology side of the Heart Team.
Read physician profile
03Surgery of the Aorta & Great Vessels
Callistus Ditah, MD
Additional surgical context when a decision involves the aorta, great vessels, or a complex reconstruction.
Read physician profile
04Vascular & Endovascular Surgery
Farhan Ayubi, DO
Vascular and endovascular context for questions that cross cardiac and vascular treatment pathways.
Read physician profile
05Echocardiography & Nuclear Medicine
Kunal U. Gurav, MD
An imaging-focused perspective on the measurements and studies that shape a cardiovascular decision.
Read physician profile
06Cardiac Electrophysiology
Rajiv R. Handa, MD
Rhythm and electrophysiology context when arrhythmia, ablation, or device questions are part of the record.
Read physician profile
07Cardiothoracic Surgery
Serrie Lico, MD
Chief Medical OfficerCardiothoracic surgical context and a clinical-quality perspective on how a case is organized for review.
Read physician profileFROM QUESTION TO SIGNED REPORT
Clinical breadth only matters when the process stays clear.
The structure is designed to show who reviewed the case, what information they used, where the perspectives align, and what remains unresolved.
Explore a sample report- 01
Start with the clinical question.
The service first defines the decision that needs clarification—indication, timing, approach, risk, alternatives, or specialist and center fit.
- 02
Build one complete record.
Reports, imaging, notes, and relevant testing are assembled before the clinical review window begins. Missing information remains visible.
- 03
Bring both sides of the Heart Team.
A cardiac surgeon and cardiologist independently review the record so operative and medical or catheter-based perspectives can be compared.
- 04
Add subspecialty context when relevant.
Aortic, vascular, imaging, structural-heart, or electrophysiology questions may require a narrower clinical lens. Participation depends on the case.
- 05
Make the reasoning usable.
The physicians who review the case sign a patient-facing report that organizes what the record supports, what remains uncertain, and what to ask next.
WHITEGLOVE Insights™Your decision,
organized.PHYSICIANS WHO REVIEW THE RECORD SIGN THE REPORT.
organized.PHYSICIANS WHO REVIEW THE RECORD SIGN THE REPORT.
CLEAR BOUNDARIES
No implied committee vote. No invisible reviewer.
The value is a transparent, case-specific review—not the appearance of a large board behind every answer.
- 01
The physicians shown here do not all review every case.
- 02
The specialists who sign a report are the physicians who reviewed that record.
- 03
The review supports—not replaces—the patient’s treating cardiologist and surgeon.
- 04
The service is educational and is not for urgent or emergency symptoms.
CLINICAL ADVISORY FAQ
Know exactly who is—and is not—in the room.
Clear participation rules make the final report easier to trust and easier to discuss with the treating team.
Who reviews a heart surgery second opinion at WHITEGLOVEMD?+
The written review is built around two primary perspectives: cardiac surgery and cardiology. The physicians who actually review the record sign the report. Additional subspecialty context may be used when the case calls for it.
Does every physician on this page review every case?+
No. The clinical question and available record determine which expertise is relevant. This page shows the specialties represented across the clinical team; it is not a promise that every listed physician will participate in one review.
What does clinical advisory mean here?+
It means that the review model can draw on complementary cardiovascular specialties while keeping the actual reviewing physicians and their conclusions visible. It does not imply a vote, endorsement, or formal decision by every physician shown.
Is the review independent of my treating hospital?+
The WHITEGLOVEMD review is performed separately from the treating team’s recommendation and is designed to give the patient another clinical perspective. It does not replace the treating clinicians or direct care at the treating hospital.
When does the 24-hour clinical review window begin?+
The 24-hour clinical review window begins only after the records and imaging required for the case have been received and confirmed complete. Records collection time is separate.
BRING THE RECORD. BRING THE QUESTION.
Put the right perspectives around your cardiac decision.
Begin with the written WHITEGLOVE Heart Team review, or request a complimentary orientation before choosing a service level.
PHYSICIAN-LED CARDIAC REVIEW