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

The heart team: the multidisciplinary approach to coronary artery disease

The recommendation to employ a heart team to guide revascularization has persisted for over a decade. Despite evidence for improved adherence to guidelines, widespread adoption of the heart team approach has been limited. This review delves into the history of the guidelines endorsing the use of a heart team and the supporting data. Additionally, it outlines some attributes of a successful heart team, and how the heart team has been run at several large academic centers. Finally, it reviews some of the barriers to a heart team and future considerations.

Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Evidence-Based Practice

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery remains a pivotal cornerstone, offering established symptomatic alleviation and prognostic advantages for patients grappling with complex multivessel and left main coronary artery diseases. Despite the lucid guidance laid out by contemporary guidelines regarding the choice between CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a notable hesitation persists among certain patients, characterized by psychological reservations, knowledge gaps, or individual beliefs that sway their inclination toward surgical intervention. This comprehensive review critically synthesizes the prevailing guidelines, modern practices, and outcomes pertaining to CABG surgery, delving into an array of techniques and advancements poised to enhance both short-term and enduring surgical outcomes. The exploration encompasses advances in on-pump and off-pump procedures, conduit selection strategies encompassing the bilateral utilization of internal mammary artery and radial artery conduits, meticulous graft evaluation methodologies, and the panorama of minimally invasive approaches, including those assisted by robotic technology. Furthermore, the review navigates the terrain of hybrid coronary revascularization, shedding light on the pivotal roles of shared decision-making and the heart team in shaping treatment pathways. As a comprehensive compendium, this review not only navigates the intricate landscape of CABG surgery but also aligns it with contemporary practices, envisioning its trajectory within the evolving currents of healthcare dynamics.

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.

Safety and feasibility of a real-time electronic heart team decision-making approach in patients with complex coronary artery disease: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial (EHEART trial)

INTRODUCTION

The implementation of a heart team still faces many challenges which may be facilitated with advanced communication technology. There is a knowledge gap to support the use of an electronic real-time heart team decision-making approach based on communication technology in the real clinical practice and evaluate its safety and feasibility in patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The EHEART (Electronic HEArt team with Real-Time decision-making) trial is a prospective, multicentre, two-arm, randomised controlled trial that will randomise 490 patients with complex CAD to either an electronic real-time heart team group or conventional heart team group. For patients allocated to the real-time electronic group, heart team meetings will be initiated during the coronary angiography and guided by a supporting system based on communication technology to help with information synchronisation, real-time communication between specialists, meeting process recording and assistance and joint decision-making with patients' families. The primary and safety endpoint is a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularisation or re-angina hospital admission at 1 year. The primary secondary outcome is the time interval from the coronary angiography to the final treatment, which is the major indicator of feasibility. We will also compare the practical feasibility from the specialist's and patient's perspectives (for example, specialist's workload and patient's decision results) between the two groups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Fuwai Hospital (no. 2022-1749). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. 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

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05514210).

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.