Coronary Revascularization in High-Risk Stable Patients With Significant Comorbidities: Challenges in Decision-Making

High-Risk Committee for Cardiac Surgery Decision-Making: Results From 110 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated our institutional experience in forming a surgeon-based committee to discuss and provide consensus opinion on high-risk cardiac surgical cases.

METHODS

The committee consisted of 4 surgeons with at least 1 senior surgeon at any given time with a rotating schedule. Patients with a Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality above specified thresholds were mandated for referral to the committee in addition to patients referred at the discretion of the surgeon. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to model survival.

RESULTS

A total of 110 consecutive patients were reviewed by the committee. The most common procedure types for referral were isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (47.3%; n = 52) and coronary artery bypass grafting with concomitant aortic valve replacement (19.1%; n = 21). The overall median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality for referred patients was 5.35% (interquartile range, 4.07%-7.89%). After group discussion, a total of 62 patients were recommended to proceed with surgery (56.4%). Reasons for declining surgery included consensus that an intervention was not indicated (39.6%; n = 19), that an alternative, nonsurgical procedure was recommended (29.2%; n = 14), that there was continued medical management and reevaluation (18.8%; n = 9), and that the patient was deemed at too high a risk for surgery (12.5%; n = 6). Operative mortality in patients proceeding with surgery was 4.6% (n = 2), with an observed-to-expected mortality of 0.86. The 6-month survival after surgery was 92.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a surgeon-based committee to discuss high-risk cases provided a unified voice to referring physicians and facilitated consensus decision-making with acceptable clinical outcomes in a challenging patient cohort.

Multidisciplinary Heart Team Approach for Complex Coronary Artery Disease: Single Center Clinical Presentation

Background The Heart Team approach is ascribed a Class I recommendation in contemporary guidelines for revascularization of complex coronary artery disease. However, limited data are available regarding the decision-making and outcomes of patients based on this strategy. Methods and Results One hundred sixty-six high-risk coronary artery disease patients underwent Heart Team evaluation at a single institution between January 2015 and November 2018. We prospectively collected data on demographics, symptoms, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality/Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (STS-PROM/SYNTAX) scores, mode of revascularization, and outcomes. Mean age was 70.0 years; 122 (73.5%) patients were male. Prevalent comorbidities included diabetes mellitus (51.8%), peripheral artery disease (38.6%), atrial fibrillation (27.1%), end-stage renal disease on dialysis (13.3%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (21.7%). Eighty-seven (52.4%) patients had New York Heart Association III-IV and 112 (67.5%) had Canadian Cardiovascular Society III-IV symptomatology. Sixty-seven (40.4%) patients had left main and 118 (71.1%) had 3-vessel coronary artery disease. The median STS-PROM was 3.6% (interquartile range 1.9, 8.0) and SYNTAX score was 26 (interquartile range 20, 34). The median number of physicians per Heart Team meeting was 6 (interquartile range 5, 8). Seventy-nine (47.6%) and 49 (29.5%) patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. With increasing STS-PROM (low, intermediate, high operative risk), coronary artery bypass graft was performed less often (47.9%, 18.5%, 15.2%) and optimal medical therapy was recommended more often (11.3%, 18.5%, 30.3%). There were no trends in recommendation for coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, or optimal medical therapy by SYNTAX score tertiles. In-hospital and 30-day mortality was 3.9% and 4.8%, respectively. Conclusions Integrating a multidisciplinary Heart Team into institutional practice is feasible and provides a formalized approach to evaluating complex coronary artery disease patients. The comprehensive assessment of surgical, anatomical, and other risk scores using a decision aid may guide appropriate, evidence-based management within this team-based construct.