Effect of a dedicated mitral heart team compared to a general heart team on survival: a retrospective, comparative, non-randomized interventional cohort study based on prospectively registered data

Outcomes of Mitral Valve Regurgitation Management after Expert Multidisciplinary Valve Team Evaluation

Background/Objectives: Mitral regurgitation (MR) affects millions worldwide, necessitating timely intervention. There are significant clinical challenges in the conservative management of MR, leaving a knowledge gap regarding the impact of multidisciplinary decision-making on treatment outcomes. This study aimed to provide insights into the impact of multidisciplinary decision-making on the survival outcomes of MR patients, focusing on conservative approaches. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzes 1365 patients evaluated by an expert multidisciplinary heart team (MDT) in a single center from 2015 to 2022. Treatments included surgery, catheter-based interventions, and conservative management. Propensity matching was utilized to compare surgery and conservative approaches. Results: Surgical intervention was associated with superior long-term survival outcomes compared to conservative and catheter-based treatments, particularly for degenerative MR (DMR). Survival rates of patients deemed by the MDT to have non-severe DMR were comparable to surgical patients (HR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.37-3.12, p = 0.90). However, non-severe functional MR (FMR) patients trended towards elevated mortality risk (HR 1.77, 95% CI: 0.94-3.31, p = 0.07). Pharmacological treatment for DMR was associated with significantly higher mortality compared to surgery (HR 8.0, 95% CI: 1.78-36.03, p = 0.001). Functional MR patients treated pharmacologically exhibited a non-significantly higher mortality risk compared to surgical intervention (HR 1.93, 95% CI: 0.77-4.77, p = 0.20). Conclusions: Survival analysis revealed significant benefits for surgical intervention, contrasting with elevated mortality risks associated with conservative management. "Watchful waiting" may be appropriate for non-severe DMR, while FMR may require closer monitoring. Further research is needed to assess the impact of regular follow-up or delayed surgery on survival rates, as pharmacological therapy has limited long-term efficacy for DMR.

Structure of multidisciplinary heart teams, a survey-based heart team study

OBJECTIVES

Multidisciplinary approach is well established in various disciplines, with evidence highlighting improved patient outcomes. The objective of this survey was to determine the real-world practice of heart teams across Europe.

METHODS

The survey was drafted after a consensus opinion from the authors. The survey was sent to cardiac surgeons and cardiologists identified through electronic search. The survey link and the information sheet were sent through email followed by survey completion reminders. The survey responses were cumulated and analysed.

RESULTS

Among 2188 invited clinicians, 220 clinicians from 26 countries took part in the survey (response rate 10%). The completion rate for the survey questions was 85%. A total of 140 (64%) were cardiac surgeons and 80 (36%) were cardiologists. The heart team meeting frequency was weekly according to 104 (55%) respondents. This was conducted face to face according to 139 (73%) of the responses. Eighty-seven (56%) of the respondents reported 10-20% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were discussed at the heart team meeting. Seventy-nine (47%) respondents had ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention institutional guidelines. Fifty-four (32%) respondents reported an audit process for the heart team decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey suggests that there is marked variability in the infra-structure and execution of heart teams in different institutions. The results of the survey suggest a need to formulate guidelines on the composition and execution of heart teams which may result in an increase in transparency of decision-making within different institutions in reporting and comparing outcomes.

The evolution of technical prerequisites and local boundary conditions for optimization of mitral valve interventions-Emphasis on skills development and institutional risk performance

This viewpoint report describes how the evolution of transcatheter mitral valve intervention (TMVI) is influenced by lessons learned from three evolutionary tracks: (1) the development of treatment from mitral valve surgery (MVS) to transcutaneous procedures; (2) the evolution of biomedical engineering for research and development resulting in predictable and safe clinical use; (3) the adaptation to local conditions, impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) experience and creation of infrastructure for skills development and risk management. Thanks to developments in computer science and biostatistics, an increasing number of reports regarding clinical safety and effectiveness is generated. A full toolbox of techniques, devices and support technology is now available, especially in surgery. There is no doubt that the injury associated with a minimally invasive access reduces perioperative risks, but it may affect the effectiveness of the treatment due to incomplete correction. Based on literature, solutions and performance standards are formulated with an emphasis in technology and positive outcome. Despite references to Heart Team decision making, boundary conditions such as hospital infrastructure, caseload, skills training and perioperative risk management remain underexposed. The role of Biomedical Engineering is exclusively defined by the Research and Development (R&D) cycle including the impact of human factor engineering (HFE). Feasibility studies generate estimations of strengths and safety limitations. Usability testing reveals user friendliness and safety margins of clinical use. Apart from a certification requirement, this information should have an impact on the definition of necessary skills levels and consequent required training. Physicians Preference Testing (PPT) and use of a biosimulator are recommended. The example of the interaction between two Amsterdam heart centers describes the evolution of a professional ecosystem that can facilitate innovation. Adaptation to local conditions in terms of infrastructure, referrals and reimbursement, appears essential for the evolution of a complete mitral valve disease management program. Efficacy of institutional risk management performance (IRMP) and sufficient team skills should be embedded in an appropriate infrastructure that enables scale and offers complete and safe solutions for mitral valve disease. The longstanding evolution of mitral valve therapies is the result of working devices embedded in an ecosystem focused on developing skills and effective risk management actions.

Mastering the learning curve of endoscopic mitral valve surgery

Endoscopic mitral valve surgery is a challenging procedure. Surgical volume is mandatory to achieve sufficient proficiency and superior results. To this date the learning curve has proven to be challenging. Offering high-fidelity simulation based training for both residents as experienced surgeons can help in establishing and enlarging surgical competences in shorter time without intraoperative trial and error.

Integrating Structural Heart Disease Trainees within the Dynamics of the Heart Team: The Case for Multimodality Training

Structural heart disease is a rapidly evolving field. However, training in structural heart disease is still widely variable and has not been standardized. Furthermore, integration of trainees within the heart team has not been fully defined. In this review, we discuss the components and function of the heart team, the challenges of current structural heart disease models, and possible solutions and suggestions for integrating trainees within the heart team.

Effect of a standardised heart team protocol versus a guideline-based protocol on revascularisation decision stability in stable complex coronary artery disease: rationale and design of a randomised trial of cardiology specialists using historic cases

INTRODUCTION

A multidisciplinary heart team approach has been recommended by revascularisation guidelines, but how to organise and implement the heart team in a standardised way has not been validated. Inter-team and intra-team decision instability existed in the guideline-based heart team protocol, and our standardised heart team protocol based on a mixed method study may improve decision stability. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of the standardised heart team protocol versus the guideline-based protocol on decision-making stability in stable complex coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Eighty-four eligible interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons or non-interventional cardiologists from 26 hospitals in China have been enrolled. They will be randomised to a standardised heart team protocol group or a guideline-based protocol group to make revascularisation decisions for 480 historic cases (from a prospective registry) with stable complex CAD. In the standardised group, we will establish 12 heart teams based on an evidence-based protocol, including specialist selection, specialist training, team composition, team training and a standardised meeting process. In the guideline-based group, we will organise 12 heart teams according to the guideline principles, including team composition and standardised meeting process. The primary outcome is the overall percent agreement in revascularisation decisions between heart teams within a group. To demonstrate the clinical implication of decision-making stability, we will further explore the association between decision stability and 1-year clinical outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Fuwai Hospital (No. 2019-1303). All participants have provided informed consent and all patients included as historic cases provided written informed consent at the time of entry to the prospective registry. The results of this trial will be disseminated through manuscript publication and national/international conferences, and reported in the trial registry entry.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05039567.

Decision Making during the Learning Curve of Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery: A Focused Review for the Starting Minimally Invasive Surgeon

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is evolving rapidly since the early 1990’s and is now increasingly adopted as the standard approach for mitral valve surgery. It has a long and challenging learning curve and there are many considerations regarding technique, planning and patient selection when starting a minimally invasive program. In the current review, we provide an overview of all considerations and the decision-making process during the learning curve.

At the Crossroads of Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery—Benching Single Hospital Experience to a National Registry: A Plea for Risk Management Technology

Almost 30 years after the first endoscopic mitral valve repair, Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery (MIMVS) has become the standard at many institutions due to optimal clinical results and fast recovery. The question that arises is can already good results be further improved by an Institutional Risk Management Performance (IRMP) system in decreasing risks in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS)? As of yet, there are no reports on IRMP and learning systems in the literature. (2) Methods: We described and appraised our five-year single institutional experience with MIMVS in isolated valve surgery included in the Netherlands Heart Registry (NHR) and investigated root causes of high-impact complications. (3) Results: The 120-day and 12-month mortality were 1.1% and 1.9%, respectively, compared to the average of 4.3% and 5.3% reported in the NHR. The regurgitation rate was 1.4% compared to 5.2% nationwide. The few high-impact complications appeared not to be preventable. (4) Discussion: In MIMVS, freedom from major and minor complications is a strong indicator of an effective IRMP but remains concealed from physicians and patients, despite its relevance to shared decision making. Innovation adds to the complexity of MIMVS and challenges surgical competence. An IRMP system may detect and control new risks earlier. (5) Conclusion: An IRMP system contributes to an effective reduction of risks, pain and discomfort; provides relevant input for shared decision making; and warrants the safe introduction of new technology. Crossroads conclusions: investment in machine learning and AI for an effective IRMP system is recommended and the roles for commanding and operating surgeons should be considered.

An Individualized Approach of Multidisciplinary Heart Team for Myocardial Revascularization and Valvular Heart Disease—State of Art

The multidisciplinary Heart Team (HT) remains the standard of care for highly-burdened patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and valvular heart disease (VHD) and is widely adopted in the medical community and supported by European and American guidelines. An approach of highly-experienced specialists, taking into account numerous clinical factors, risk assessment, long-term prognosis and patients preferences seems to be the most rational option for individuals with. Some studies suggest that HT management may positively impact adherence to current recommendations and encourage the incorporation of patient preferences through the use of shared-decision making. Evidence from randomized-controlled trials are scarce and we still have to satisfy with observational studies. Furthermore, we still do not know how HT should cooperate, what goals are desired and most importantly, how HT decisions affect long-term outcomes and patient’s satisfaction. This review aimed to comprehensively discuss the available evidence establishing the role of HT for providing optimal care for patients with CAD and VHD. We believe that the need for research to recognize the HT definition and range of its functioning is an important issue for further exploration. Improved techniques of interventional cardiology, minimally-invasive surgeries and new drugs determine future perspectives of HT conceptualization, but also add new issues to the complexity of HT cooperation. Regardless of which direction HT has evolved, its concept should be continued and refined to improve healthcare standards.