Is the era of the heart team coming?

Midterm outcomes of patients with multivessel disease treated at centers with and without on-site cardiac surgery services

OBJECTIVE

The last decade has witnessed an increased number of stand-alone interventional cardiology units due to the consolidation of cardiac surgery services. We aimed to explore the impact of a heart team on the midterm outcomes of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

METHODS

This prospective registry included 1063 consecutive patients with multivessel disease enrolled between January and April 2013 from all 22 hospitals in Israel that perform coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, with or without on-site cardiac surgery services.

RESULTS

Of the 1063 patients, 576 (54%) and 487 (46%) were admitted to centers with or without on-site cardiac surgery services, respectively. Centers with cardiac surgery services compared with those without had more male patients (82% vs 77%, P = .026) and more patients who were taking aspirin (75% vs 67%, P = .008) before admission. Other characteristics were similar between the groups, including mean SYNTAX score (22.5 ± 9.6 vs 22.2 ± 10, P = .680). Late outcomes revealed a higher 6-year survival probability in centers with on-site cardiac surgery services (85.1% vs 81.3%, P = .047). Although coronary artery bypass grafting (vs percutaneous coronary intervention) was associated with a survival advantage among patients from hospitals with cardiac surgery services (89.9% vs 81.5%, P = .004), in the absence of on-site cardiac surgery services there were no differences between the 2 revascularization approaches (81.8% vs 81.1%, P = .9).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease treated in centers without on-site cardiac surgery services receive a lower rate of appropriate guideline-based intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting, which is associated with less favorable outcomes. These findings suggest that a heart-team approach should be mandatory even in centers with stand-alone interventional cardiology units.

Comparison of patients with multivessel disease treated at centers with and without on-site cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

The regional needs and consolidation of cardiac surgery services (CSS) result in an increased number of stand-alone interventional cardiology units. We aimed to explore the impact of a heart team on the decision making and outcomes of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease referred for coronary revascularization in stand-alone interventional cardiology units.

METHODS

This prospective study included 1063 consecutive patients with multivessel disease enrolled between January and April 2013 from all 22 hospitals in Israel that perform coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), with or without on-site CSS.

RESULTS

Of the 1063 patients, 487 (46%) underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and 576 (54%) underwent PCI. A higher proportion of patients underwent PCI in hospitals without on-site CSS compared with those with on-site CSS (65% vs 46%; P < .001). Furthermore, patients referred to CABG from hospitals without on-site CSS had a significantly higher mean SYNTAX score compared with those who underwent CABG in centers with on-site CSS (29 vs 26; P = .018). Multivariate logistic regression analysis consistently showed that the absence of on-site cardiac surgery and a heart team was independently associated with a 2.5-fold increased likelihood for predicting the referral of PCI rather than CABG (odds ratio, 2.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-3.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease treated in centers without on-site cardiac surgery services receive a lower rate of appropriate guideline-based intervention with CABG. These findings suggest that a heart team approach should be mandatory even in centers with stand-alone interventional cardiology units.