Heart Team decision making and long-term outcomes for 1000 consecutive cases of coronary artery disease

Do the Few Dictate Care for the Many? Revascularisation Considerations That Go Beyond the Guidelines

The burden of coronary artery disease (CAD) is large and growing, commonly presenting with comorbidities and older age. Patients may benefit from coronary revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), yet half of patients with CAD who would benefit from revascularisation fall outside the eligibility criteria of trials to date. As such, the choice of revascularisation procedures varies depending on the CAD anatomy and complexity, surgical risk and comorbidities, the patient's preferences and values, and the treating team's expertise. The recent American guidelines on coronary revascularisation are comprehensive in describing recommendations for PCI, CABG, or conservative management in patients with CAD. However, individual challenging patient presentations cannot be fully captured in guidelines. The aim of this narrative review is to summarise common clinical scenarios that are not sufficiently described by contemporary clinical guidelines and trials in order to inform heart team members and trainees about the nuanced considerations and available evidence to manage such cases. We discuss clinical cases that fall beyond the current guidelines and summarise the relevant evidence evaluating coronary revascularisation for these patients. In addition, we highlight gaps in knowledge based on a lack of research (eg, ineligibility of certain patient populations), underrepresentation in research (eg, underenrollment of female and non-White patients), and the surge in newer minimally invasive and hybrid techniques. We argue that ultimately, evidence-based medicine, patient preference, shared decision making, and effective heart team communications are necessary to best manage complex CAD presentations potentially benefitting from revascularisation with CABG or PCI.

The multidisciplinary Heart Team approach for patients with cardiovascular disease: a step towards personalized medicine

AIMS

Despite general agreement on the benefits of the Heart Team approach for patients with cardiac diseases, few data are available on its real impact on the decision-making process. The aim of the study is to define the evolution over time of the level of agreement with the systematic discussion of patients in the Heart Team and to evaluate the adherence to the Heart Team recommendations and the impact of the Heart Team on the clinical outcome of the patients.

METHODS

In 2015--2016, an experienced cardiac surgeon and a cardiologist independently reviewed clinical data of a series of 100 patients (Group 1, G1) and subsequently for each patient recommended treatment (surgical, percutaneous, hybrid or medical therapy) or further diagnostic investigations. The next day, each case was discussed by the Hospital Heart Team. The Heart Team recommendation, the subsequent treatment received by the patient and the in-hospital outcome were recorded. The same study procedure was repeated in 2017 in a second (G2) and in 2018 in a third (G3) group, both of them including 100 patients.

RESULTS

Complete agreement in treatment selection by the cardiac surgeon, cardiologist and the Heart Team was observed in 43% of cases in G1 and in 70% and 68% in G2 and G3, respectively (G1 vs. G2: P  < 0.001, G1 vs. G3: P  = 0.01, G2 vs. G3: P  = 0.30). Agreement was less frequent in patients with a higher risk profile and in patients with aortic valve stenosis. The Heart Team decision was implemented in 95% of cases with a 30-day mortality of 0.67%.

CONCLUSION

Agreement in treatment selection among the cardiac surgeon, cardiologist and Heart Team appears to be low in the initial experience. Subsequently, it seems to steadily increase over time up to a limit, when it reaches a plateau of stable results. Heart Team clinical cases discussion, based on both guidelines and multidisciplinary experience, represents a key step in defining the best patient treatment pathway, potentially improving the decision-making process and clinical results.

Clinical impact of the heart team on the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement among octogenarians

OBJECTIVES

The effectiveness of a multidisciplinary heart team in the management of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is unknown. This study evaluated the impact of a heart team on the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in octogenarians.

METHODS

Between May 2007 and January 2016, 528 patients aged 80 years or more were referred to our institutional heart team for a transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Among these, 101 were redirected to surgical aortic valve replacement (heart team group). These patients were compared with a surgical aortic valve replacement cohort (n = 506) without prior heart team screening (non-heart team group), taken from the same time period. Propensity score matching with bootstrap analysis was performed; 76 heart team patients were matched to 76 non-heart team patients. Early and late outcomes including survival and readmission for cardiovascular causes were compared.

RESULTS

Matched subgroups were largely comparable; congestive heart failure and echocardiographic pulmonary hypertension were more prevalent in the heart team group. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the matched heart team group (0% vs 6.0%, bootstrap mean difference 6.0%, 95% confidence interval, 2.2-9.8). The risk of stroke, low cardiac output state, reexploration for bleeding, pneumonia, and prolonged ventilation was also significantly lower in the heart team group. There was no significant between-group difference regarding late survival (hazard ratio, 0.86, 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.33, P = .49) or readmission for cardiovascular reasons (hazard ratio, 0.70, 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.20, P = .19).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative multidisciplinary assessment of octogenarians by a heart team was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and adverse events after surgical aortic valve replacement.

Quality and process improvement of the multidisciplinary Heart Team meeting using Lean Six Sigma

INTRODUCTION

The Heart Team is a multidisciplinary meeting for shared decision-making in cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery. A quality improvement project to optimise the Heart Team was initiated after the merger of the cardiac centres of Amsterdam University Medical Centre.

METHODS

Lean Six Sigma was applied with the purpose of improving efficiency and quality of care. Qualitative and quantitative analyses supported the multidisciplinary team during quality improvement sessions. Lean Six Sigma tools included process mapping, gemba walks, root cause analysis, line balancing, first time right, standardised work and poka-yoke.

INTERVENTIONS

Seven areas of improvement were introduced. Key elements were the improvement of the patient referral process, introduction of a structured agenda, task division and balanced planning of patients, better exchange of information, improved availability of diagnostics and supportive tools and information technology. Work agreements were introduced to support a positive work culture and mutual respect.

RESULTS

Lean Six Sigma designed an optimised Heart Team to improve efficiency by better resource utilisation, first time right decision-making, patient selection, complete and better access to information and elimination of waste. It leads to higher quality of decision-making by involving physicians in a more structured preparation, attendance of an imaging cardiologist, meeting duration within limits, installation of standard operating procedures, increased involvement of the referring cardiologists and a better engaged team.

CONCLUSIONS

Heart Teams are essential to make evidence-based, patient-centred treatment plans for optimal patient outcomes. However, clinical practice and experience showed that it is challenging to have an efficient and effective discussion with complete patient information and to bring together healthcare professionals. The application of Lean Six Sigma resulted in an optimised Heart Team and created a best practice design for patient-centred, evidence-based decision-making. After implementation and process stability, a postintervention analysis could clarify long-term success and sustainability.

Postoperative results of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass procedure in 234 patients

Introduction

Minimally invasive approach in cardiac surgery has gained popularity. In order to reduce surgical trauma in coronary surgery minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) has already been established. This technique has been introduced for revascularisation of isolated left anterior descending (LAD). It can also be performed for hybrid revascularisation procedure in multi-vessel disease.

Methods

From 2017 to 2021, 234 patients received MIDCAB operation in our heartcenter 73% were male. Most of the patients had two or three vessel disease (74%). The average age of the patients was 66 ± 12 years mean. The left internal mammary artery (LIMA) was anastomosed to the LAD through left minithoracotomy approach. Multi-vessel MIDCAB (MV-MIDCAB) including two anastomoses (T-graft to LIMA with additional saphenous vein graft) was done in 15% (n = 35).

Results

The average operation time was 2.3 ± 0.8 h mean. The 30-day mortality was 1.7% (n = 4). The average amount of packed red blood cells (pRBC) that was given intra- and postoperatively was 0.4 ± 0.8 units mean. The mean intensive care unit stay (ICU) was 1 ± 1.2 days. Three patients (1.3%) had wound infection postoperatively. The rate of neurologic complications was 0.4% (n = 1). Two patients (0.9%) had myocardial infarction and received coronary re-angiography perioperatively including stent implantation of the right coronary artery.

Discussion

The MIDCAB procedure is a safe and less traumatic procedure for selected patients with proximal LAD lesions. It is also an option for hybrid procedure in multi-vessel disease. The ICU stay and application of pRBC's are low. Our MIDCAB results show a good postoperative clinical outcome. However, follow-up data are necessary to evaluate long-term outcome.

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.

Does a Heart Team Improve Clinical Outcomes?

Consultation by a Heart Team (HT) is a class I recommendation by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with complex cardiac disease. Despite the class I recommendation, there is a paucity of data to support the role of an HT with only level C quality of evidence. This study was performed to follow patients who were referred for HT consultation and long-term outcomes in relation to whether the recommendation of the HT was followed or not. We performed a prospective analysis of our cohort of patients who underwent consultation by the HT. A total of 342 cases have been followed. Patient characteristics, referring physicians' favored treatment, and key outcomes were followed. A total of 336 patients were reviewed; 70.4% were male patients with a median age of 66.3 years and an average EuroSCORE II score of 7.2%. A total of 79.9% of the discussions resulted in a unanimous decision. The recommendations made by the HT differed from those documented by the referring physician in 54% of cases. In conclusion, recommendations made by the HT were followed in 269 cases (83.8%). There was a significant reduction in cardiac death (6.3% vs 15.3%, p = 0.042), composite cardiac outcome (23.4% vs 51.9%, p ≤0.001), and hospital admissions (10.4% vs 36.5%, p ≤0.001) when recommendations were followed. There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups when looking at noncardiac death, stroke, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, dialysis, or an emergency room visit.

Optimal Management of Patients with Severe Coronary Artery Disease following Multidisciplinary Heart Team Approach-Insights from Tertiary Cardiovascular Care Center

Background: The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate outcomes of patients with severe coronary artery disease (CAD) after implementing various treatment strategies following multidisciplinary Heart Team (MHT) discussion. Methods Primary and secondary endpoints and quality of life during a mean (SD) follow-up of 37 (14) months of patients with severe CAD (three-vessel [3-VD] or/and left main [LM] disease) qualified after MHT discussion to optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone, OMT and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), or OMT and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were evaluated. As the primary endpoint, major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat/need for revascularization) were considered. Result: From 2016 to 2019, 176 MHT meetings were held, and a total of 1286 participants with severe CAD and completely implemented MHT decisions (OMT, CABG, or PCI for 251, 356, and 679 patients, respectively) were included. The occurrence of the primary endpoint was significantly increased in OMT-group (154 (61.4%) vs. CABG and PCI groups—110 (30.9%) and 302 (44.5%) patients, respectively (p < 0.05). For interventional strategies only—CABG was associated with reduced rates of MACCE and repeat revascularization, while the superiority of PCI for stroke and disabling stroke was observed (p < 0.05). The general health status assessed at the end of the follow-up was significantly better for patients who underwent CABG or PCI than in the OMT group (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In this real-life study, we presented a single-center experience of providing optimal medical care for patients with severe CAD following MHT discussion.

The Prognostic Significance of Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR), Monocyte to Lymphocyte Ratio (MLR) and Platelet to Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) on Long-Term Survival in Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (OPCAB) Procedures

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular diseases, apart from commonly known risk factors, are related to inflammation. There are several simple novel markers proposed to present the relation between inflammatory reactions activation and atherosclerotic changes. They are easily available from whole blood count and include neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte to lymphocyte ratio (MLR), and platelets to lymphocyte ratio (PLR). The RDW results were excluded from the analysis.

METHOD AND RESULTS

The study based on retrospective single-centre analysis of 682 consecutive patients (131 (19%) females and 551 (81%) males) with median age of 66 years (60-71) who underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) procedure. During the median 5.3 +/- 1.9 years follow-up, there was a 87% cumulative survival rate. The laboratory parameters including preoperative MLR > 0.2 (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.33-4.55, p = 0.004) and postoperative NLR > 3.5 (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.09-2.79, p = 0.019) were found significant for long-term mortality prediction in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

Hematological indices NLR and MLR can be regarded as significant predictors of all-cause long-term mortality after OPCAB revascularization. Multivariable analysis revealed preoperative values of MLR > 0.2 and postoperative values of NLR > 3.5 as simple, reliable factors which may be applied into clinical practice for meticulous postoperative monitoring of patients in higher risk of worse prognosis.

Health Care Analysis on Myocardial Revascularization in Patients with Chronic Coronary Artery Disease: The Multicenter REVASK Study: Design and Protocol

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are available for revascularization of coronary artery disease (CAD) with the aims to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and to improve disease-related quality of life in particular. The German National Care Guideline (NVL-cKHK) on chronic CAD recommends the establishment of so-called heart teams for decision making in myocardial revascularization to improve the quality of care. Preferred recommendations for PCI or CABG are given for different patient subgroups depending on patient characteristics, concomitant diseases, and coronary morphology. The myocardial revascularization study (REVASK) is a noninterventional cohort study on care of patients undergoing PCI or CABG based on retrospective statutory health insurance (SHI) routine data, registry data from the German Cardiac Society (DGK) resp., the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (DGTHG), combined with prospective primary data collection from health care providers and patients. The primary goal is to investigate whether and to which extent heart teams, consisting of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons, increase guideline adherence in decision making for myocardial revascularization. Ultimately the study project aims to improve patient care in terms of decision making for appropriate myocardial revascularization. Through the consistent implementation of the German National Care Guideline on chronic Coronary Artery Disease (NVL-cKHK) and the European Guidelines on myocardial revascularization, the reduction of morbidity, mortality and the reduced need for subsequent revascularization procedures are also desirable from a health economics perspective.

The Role of the Heart Team in Patients with Diffuse Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

BACKGROUND

 In patients eligible for coronary artery bypass grafting, no data assess the importance of the Heart Team in programming the best surgical strategy for patients with diffuse coronary artery disease (CAD). This study aims to determine the contribution of the Heart Team in predicting the feasibility of coronary artery bypass graft and angiographic surgical success in these patients based on visual angiographic analysis.

METHODS

 Patients with diffuse and severe CAD undergoing incomplete coronary artery bypass graft surgery were prospectively included. One-year postoperative coronary angiograms were obtained to evaluate graft occlusion. Two clinical cardiologists, two cardiovascular surgeons, and one interventional cardiologist retrospectively analyzed preoperative angiograms. A subjective scale was applied at a single moment to quantify the chance of successful coronary artery bypass grafting for each coronary territory with anatomical indication for revascularization. Based on individual scores, the Heart Team's and the specialists' scores were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

 The examiners evaluated 154 coronary territories, of which 85 (55.2%) were protected. The Heart Team's accuracy for predicting the angiographic success of the surgery was 74.9%, almost equal to that of the surgeons alone (73.2%). Only the interventional cardiologist predicted left anterior descending territory grafting success. The Heart Team had good specificity and reasonable sensitivity, and the surgeons had high sensitivity and low specificity in predicting angiographic success.

CONCLUSION

 The multispecialty Heart Team achieved good accuracy in predicting the angiographic coronary artery bypass graft success in patients with diffuse CAD, with a high specificity and reasonable sensitivity.

Heart teams in the Netherlands: From teamwork to data‑driven decision-making

For all patients with cardiovascular disease requiring an intervention, this is a major life event. The heart team concept is one of the most exciting and effective team modalities to ensure cost-effective application of invasive cardiovascular care. It optimises patient selection in a complex decision-making process and identifies risk/benefit ratios of different interventions. Informed consent and patient safety should be at the centre of these decisions. To deal with increased load of medical data in the future, artificial intelligence could enable objective and effective interpretation of medical imaging and decision support. This technical support is indispensable to meet current patient and societal demands for informed consent, shared decision-making, outcome improvement and safety. The heart team should be restructured with clear leadership, accountability, and process and outcome measurement of interventions. In this way, the heart team concept in the Netherlands will be ready for the future.

The impact of Heart Team discussion on decision making for coronary revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Revascularization guidelines support routine Heart Team (HT) discussion of appropriate patients. The effect of HT on decision making and clinical outcomes has not been explored. The aim of our study is to investigate the impact of the HT on the mode and delay to revascularization.

METHODS

We compared data from a prospective cohort of consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) referred for HT discussion between 2016 and 2017 (HT group) with a historic control group of patients matched according to clinical and angiographic characteristics treated between 2005 and 2015 (No HT group).

RESULTS

There were 93 patients in each group. The HT group and the No HT groups had a similar rate of ACS as well as cardiovascular risk factors and significant left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. No difference was observed in the mean Society of Thoracic Surgery score (2.5 ± 3 vs 3 ± 3; P = .32) and the mean SYNTAX score was low and similar in both groups (21 ± 6 vs 19 ± 6; P = .59). The treatment recommendations changed greatly, with 63% of patients being referred for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) after HT discussion but only 23% in the No HT group (P < .01). HT discussion led to a significant delay to PCI (8 ± 5 vs 1.8 ± 4 days; P = .02), while surgical revascularization times were not affected.

CONCLUSION

HT discussion in patients with multivessel CAD was associated with an increased referral to CABG but led to a significant delay in revascularization by angioplasty. The impact of these findings on patient satisfaction and outcome should be further investigated.

Clinical practice patterns in revascularization of diabetic patients with coronary heart disease: nationwide register study

Aims: To compare diabetic patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) needing revascularization to corresponding non-diabetic patients in terms of revascularization methods, comorbidities and urgency of procedure. We also examined the impact of patient characteristics and comorbidities on the revascularization method.Methods: We identified all diabetic (n = 33,018) and non-diabetic (n = 106,224) patients with first-ever, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) from electronic health records in Finland between 2000 and 2015.Results: Overall, PCI was the most common revascularization method. PCI outnumbered CABG in women and men both in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. However, diabetic patients were more likely to undergo CABG than PCI (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.27-1.34, adjusted for age, gender, region of residence and procedure year). Moreover, 26.9% of diabetic patients' urgent procedures were CABG compared to 21.6% in non-diabetic patients (p<.001). Among diabetic patients, prior myocardial infarction was associated with increased odds of CABG, whereas female gender, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, hypertension and later procedure year were associated with lower odds of CABG.Conclusions: CABG has been performed more frequently in diabetic than in non-diabetic CHD patients. Nevertheless, PCI was the dominant revascularization method over CABG both in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. KEY MESSAGESPCI was the dominant revascularization method in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Diabetic patients were more likely to undergo CABG than PCI when compared to non-diabetic patients (OR: 1.30; CI 1.27-1.34).Diabetic patients underwent urgent CABG procedures more often than non-diabetic patients and had more comorbidities compared to non-diabetic patients.

Mapping decision making for bypass surgery in the era of interventional medicine: towards an integrative model of patient-centeredness

This article reviews the context and evidence of recent myocardial revascularization trials on PCI versus CABG with particular emphasis on patient selection and treatment of surgical patients. Moreover, one of our intended purposes is to identify the values underpinning the integrated care model, which incorporates decision to proceed with surgical myocardial revascularization in conjunction with established pillars of the use of optimal surgical techniques, and aggressive risk-factor modification through guideline-directed pharmacological therapies and lifestyle modifications.

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.