Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

IMPORTANCE

Although the heart team approach is recommended in revascularization guidelines, the frequency with which heart team decisions differ from those of the original treating interventional cardiologist is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the difference in decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study, 245 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were recruited from 1 high-volume tertiary care referral center (185 patients were enrolled through a screening process, and 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled from the center's database). A total of 237 patients were included in the final virtual heart team analysis. Treatment decisions (which comprised coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy) were made by the original treating interventional cardiologists between March 15, 2012, and October 20, 2014. These decisions were then compared with pooled-majority treatment decisions made by 8 blinded heart teams using structured online case presentations between October 1, 2017, and October 15, 2018. The randomized members of the heart teams comprised experts from 3 domains, with each team containing 1 noninvasive cardiologist, 1 interventional cardiologist, and 1 cardiovascular surgeon. Cases in which all 3 of the heart team members disagreed and cases in which procedural discordance occurred (eg, 2 members chose coronary artery bypass grafting and 1 member chose percutaneous coronary intervention) were discussed in a face-to-face heart team review in October 2018 to obtain pooled-majority decisions. Data were analyzed from May 6, 2019, to April 22, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The Cohen κ coefficient between the treatment recommendation from the heart team and the treatment recommendation from the original treating interventional cardiologist.

RESULTS

Among 234 of 237 patients (98.7%) in the analysis for whom complete data were available, the mean (SD) age was 67.8 (10.9) years; 176 patients (75.2%) were male, and 191 patients (81.4%) had stenosis in 3 epicardial coronary vessels. A total of 71 differences (30.3%; 95% CI, 24.5%-36.7%) in treatment decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist occurred, with a Cohen κ of 0.478 (95% CI, 0.336-0.540; P = .006). The heart team decision was more frequently unanimous when it was concordant with the decision of the original treating interventional cardiologist (109 of 163 cases [66.9%]) compared with when it was discordant (28 of 71 cases [39.4%]; P < .001). When the heart team agreed with the original treatment decision, there was more agreement between the heart team interventional cardiologist and the original treating interventional cardiologist (138 of 163 cases [84.7%]) compared with when the heart team disagreed with the original treatment decision (14 of 71 cases [19.7%]); P < .001). Those with an original treatment of coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy, 32 of 148 patients [22.3%], 32 of 71 patients [45.1%], and 6 of 15 patients [40.0%], respectively, received a different treatment recommendation from the heart team than the original treating interventional cardiologist; the difference across the 3 groups was statistically significant (P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The heart team's recommended treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease differed from that of the original treating interventional cardiologist in up to 30% of cases. This subset of cases was associated with a lower frequency of unanimous decisions within the heart team and less concordance between the interventional cardiologists; discordance was more frequent when percutaneous coronary intervention or medication therapy were considered. Further research is needed to evaluate whether heart team decisions are associated with improvements in outcomes and, if so, how to identify patients for whom the heart team approach would be beneficial.

Tranexamic acid and rosuvastatin in patients at risk of cardiovascular events after noncardiac surgery: a pilot of the POISE-3 randomized controlled trial

Background

Surgical bleeding is associated with postoperative cardiovascular complications. The efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) in noncardiac surgery are still uncertain. Statins may prevent perioperative cardiovascular complications. We conducted a pilot to assess the feasibility of a perioperative trial of TXA and rosuvastatin.

Methods

Using a factorial design, we randomized patients at cardiovascular risk undergoing noncardiac surgery to intravenous TXA (1 g at the start and end of surgery) or placebo, and oral rosuvastatin (40 mg before and 20 mg daily for 30 days after surgery) or placebo. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment rates, follow-up, and compliance to interventions. Clinical outcomes were secondarily explored.

Results

After 3 months, we changed the design to a partial factorial due to the difficult recruitment of statin-naive patients. Over 6 months, 100 patients were randomized in the TXA trial (49 TXA, 51 placebo), 34 in the rosuvastatin trial (18 rosuvastatin, 16 placebo). Ninety-two percent (95% CI 80–98) of TXA and 86% (95% CI 74–94) of TXA-placebo patients received the 2 study doses. Thirty-three percent (95% CI 13–59) of rosuvastatin patients and 37% (95% CI 15–65) of rosuvastatin-placebo patients discontinued the study drug. A major cardiovascular complication occurred at 30 days in 1 TXA and 6 TXA-placebo patients, and 1 rosuvastatin and no rosuvastatin-placebo patients.

Conclusions

Our pilot study supports the feasibility of a perioperative TXA trial in noncardiac surgery. Feasibility of a perioperative rosuvastatin trial is uncertain because of a high prevalence of statin use in the target population and concerns about compliance.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT02546648.

Perioperative management of patients who are receiving antiplatelet therapy: a case-based, evidence-informed approach

Addressing the optimal management approach for patients who are receiving single or dual antiplatelet therapy is a common and sometimes challenging clinical problem, especially for patients with coronary stents who are receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) combined with a P2Y12 inhibitor. Using a case-based format, we summarize the findings of recent clinical trials and key observational studies which help inform best practices for the perioperative antiplatelet management of noncardiac surgery and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In this review, we explore the evidence to address 3 key questions: What is the minimum duration that a surgery should be delayed after coronary stent implantation? In patients who are receiving single antiplatelet therapy with ASA, how to manage patients who require noncardiac and cardiac surgery? In patients who are receiving dual antiplatelet therapy for a coronary stent, how to manage patients who require noncardiac and cardiac surgery?

Postoperative Hypoxemia Is Common and Persistent: A Prospective Blinded Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The incidence, severity, and duration of postoperative oxygen desaturation in the general surgical population are poorly characterized. We therefore used continuous pulse oximetry to quantify arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2) in a cross-section of patients having noncardiac surgery.

METHODS

Oxygen saturation, blinded to clinicians, was recorded at 1-minute intervals in patients >45 years old for up to 48 hours after noncardiac surgery in 1250 patients from Cleveland Clinic Main Campus and 250 patients from the Juravinski Hospital. We determined (1) the cumulative minutes of raw minute-by-minute values below various hypoxemic thresholds; and (2) the contiguous duration of kernel-smoothed (sliding window) values below various hypoxemic thresholds. Finally, we compared our blinded continuous values with saturations recorded during routine nursing care.

RESULTS

Eight hundred thirty-three patients had sufficient data for analyses. Twenty-one percent had ≥10 min/h with raw SpO2 values <90% averaged over the entire recording duration; 8% averaged ≥20 min/h <90%; and 8% averaged ≥5 min/h <85%. Prolonged hypoxemic episodes were common, with 37% of patients having at least 1 (smoothed) SpO2 <90% for an hour or more; 11% experienced at least 1 episode lasting ≥6 hours; and 3% had saturations <80% for at least 30 minutes. Clinical hypoxemia, according to nursing records, measured only in Cleveland Clinic patients (n = 594), occurred in 5% of the monitored patients. The nurses missed 90% of smoothed hypoxemic episodes in which saturation was <90% for at least one hour.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypoxemia was common and prolonged in hospitalized patients recovering from noncardiac surgery. The SpO2 values recorded in medical records seriously underestimated the severity of postoperative hypoxemia.

Is there a role for novel oral anticoagulants in patients with an acute coronary syndrome? A review of the clinical trials

The novel oral anticoagulant drugs, comprising dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, have emerged as compelling alternatives to vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, and low‑molecular‑weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis following hip and knee arthroplasty. Rivaroxaban has also been approved for treatment of venous thromboembolism. However, the role of these drugs for the management of patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is less certain. The purpose of this review was to summarize the randomized trials evaluating novel oral anticoagulants in patients with an ACS and consider the reasons why these drugs have not been incorporated into routine clinical practice. In addition, the situation involving rivaroxaban, which has been approved for use in patients with an acute coronary syndrome in Europe but not in North America, is discussed.