Heart Team Decision Research Articles

Long-term outcomes in patients with dual pathology aortic stenosis and cardiac amyloidosis referred for valve intervention

Abstract Background The coexistence of aortic stenosis (AS) and cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is common. If treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), patients with the combined phenotype (AS-CA) have a comparable short term survival to those with lone AS, whereas data on longer term outcomes is currently lacking. Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of AS-CA compared to lone AS over a 5-year follow-up. Methods Using a prospective, multicentre, observational, case-control design, we screened consecutive patients with severe AS referred for TAVI for co-existing CA. CA screening included blinded 99mTc-DPD bone scintigraphy (Perugini Grade-0 negative, 1-3 increasingly positive) with additional SPECT/CT and light chain assessment prior to intervention. Transthyretin CA (ATTR) was diagnosed by bone scintigraphy and unremarkable light chain assessment, light-chain CA (AL) by endomyocardial biopsy. Mortality (all-cause and cardiovascular [CV]) and hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF) were captured as clinical endpoints. Results 376 patients (83±7 years, 52% female, EuroSCORE-II 4.9±2.9) were recruited, of which 43 (11.4%) had AS-CA (42 ATTR, 1 AL). Compared to lone AS, patients with AS-CA were older with higher cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP, high-sensitive Troponin-T) and a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation. Heart team decision yielded valve replacement in 320 (85%) and conservative management in 56 (15%) patients, without differences between AS-CA and lone AS. Over a median follow-up of 5.4 (Q1: 4.9; Q3: 5.7) years, 230 (61.1%) patients died and 67 (17.8%) experienced HHF (with a total HHF number of 91). AS-CA was associated with higher all-cause mortality (crude HR 1.64, 95%CI 1.15-2.35; log-rank, p=0.006), which remained significant after multivariate adjustment for clinical confounders (EuroSCORE-II, valve replacement; adjusted HR 1.63, 95%CI 1.15-2.32; p=0.006). AS-CA was not associated with CV mortality (log-rank, p=0.18) or time to first HHF (log-rank, p=0.43), but the rate of HHF was significantly higher in AS-CA compared to lone AS (5.7 versus 3.5 per 1,000 patient years, p=0.022). Conclusions Among elderly patients referred for TAVI, long-term outcomes of AS-CA are characterized by higher mortality and a higher rate of heart failure hospitalisations compared to patients with lone AS. Studies evaluating the role of CA-specific treatments are warranted in this population.

Gender-Tailored Heart Team Decision Making Equalizes Outcomes for Female Patients after Aortic Valve Replacement through Right Anterior Small Thoracotomy (RAST).

Little is known about gender-dependent outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) through right anterior thoracotomy (RAST). The aim of our study was to analyze the mid-term outcomes of our cohort. This study is a retrospective analysis of 338 patients (2013-2022). Subgroup analysis included a gender-dependent comparison of age groups ≤60 and >60 years. Women were older (69.27 ± 7.98 vs. 64.15 ± 11.47, p < 0.001) with higher Euroscore II (1.25 ± 0.73 vs. 0.94 ± 0.45, p < 0.001). Bypass and cross-clamp time were shorter (109.36 ± 30.8 vs. 117.65 ± 33.1 minutes, p = 0.01; 68.26 ± 21.5 vs. 74.36 ± 23.3 minutes, p = 0.01), while ICU, hospital stay and atrial fibrillation were higher (2.48 ± 8.2 vs. 1.35 ± 1.4 days, p = 0.005; 11 ± 7.8 vs. 9.48 ± 2.3 days, p = 0.002; 6.7% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.024). Mortality was 0.9%, while stroke was 0.6%. Age subgroup analysis showed that women were older (p = 0.025) with longer ICU and hospital stays (p < 0.001, p = 0.007). On mid-term follow-up (4.52 ± 2.67 years) of 315 patients (94.3%), there was no significant difference in survival, MACCE and re-intervention comparing gender and age groups. Despite older age, higher Euroscore II, longer ICU and hospital stay in women, mortality, MACCE and reoperation were low and comparable in gender and age groups. We believe that our patient-tailored heart team decision making combined with RAST translates into gender-tailored medicine, which equalizes the widely reported negative outcomes of female patients after cardiac surgery.

TCT-838 Clinical Futility in Patients With Active Malignancy Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement After Multidisciplinary Heart Team Decision

TCT-838 Clinical Futility in Patients With Active Malignancy Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement After Multidisciplinary Heart Team Decision

Failure of Surgical Aortic Valve Prostheses: An Analysis of Heart Team Decisions and Postoperative Outcomes.

Objectives: To analyze Heart Team decisions and outcomes following failure of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) prostheses. Methods: Patients undergoing re-operations following index SAVR (Redo-SAVR) and those undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) following SAVR were included in this study. Patients who underwent index SAVR and/or Redo-SAVR for endocarditis were excluded. Data are presented as medians and 25th-75th percentiles, or absolute numbers and percentages. Outcomes were analyzed in accordance to the VARC-3 criteria. Results: Between 01/2015 and 03/2021, 53 patients underwent Redo-SAVR, 103 patients ViV-TAVR. Mean EuroSCORE II was 5.7% (3.5-8.5) in the Redo-SAVR group and 9.2% (5.4-13.6) in the ViV group. In the Redo-SAVR group, 12 patients received aortic root enlargement (22.6%). Length of hospital and ICU stay was longer in the Redo-SAVR group (p < 0.001; p < 0.001), PGmax and PGmean were lower in the Redo-SAVR group as compared to the ViV-TAVR group (18 mmHg (10-30) vs. 26 mmHg (19-38), p < 0.001) (9 mmHg (6-15) vs. 15 mmHg (9-21), p < 0.001). A higher rate of paravalvular leakage was seen in the ViV-TAVR group (p = 0.013). VARC-3 Early Safety were comparable between the two populations (p = 0.343). Survival at 1 year and 5 years was 82% and 36% in the ViV-TAVR cohort and 84% and 77% in the Redo-SAVR cohort. The variables were patient age (OR 1.061; [95% CI 1.020-1.104], p = 0.004), coronary heart disease (OR 2.648; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021), and chronic renal insufficiency (OR 2.711; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021) showed a significant correlation to ViV-TAVR. Conclusions: Heart Team decisions are crucial in the treatment of patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses and lead to a low mortality in both treatment paths thanks to patient-specific therapy planning. ViV-TAVR offers a treatment for elderly or intermediate-risk profile patients with comparable short-term mortality. However, this therapy is associated with increased pressure gradients and a high prevalence of paravalvular leakage. Redo-SAVR enables the surgical treatment of concomitant cardiac pathologies and allows anticipation for later VIV-TAVR by implanting the largest possible valve prostheses.

Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for Heart Team decision-making in multivessel disease: the randomised, multicentre DECISION QFR trial.

Vessel-level physiological data derived from pressure wire measurements are one of the important determinant factors in the optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with multivessel disease (MVD). However, these may result in complications and a prolonged procedure time. The feasibility of using the quantitative flow ratio (QFR), an angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR), in Heart Team discussions to determine the optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with MVD was investigated. Two Heart Teams were randomly assigned either QFR- or FFR-based data of the included patients. They then discussed the optimal revascularisation mode (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) for each patient and made treatment recommendations. The primary endpoint of the trial was the level of agreement between the treatment recommendations of both teams as assessed using Cohen's kappa. The trial included 248 patients with MVD from 10 study sites. Cohen's kappa in the recommended revascularisation modes between the QFR and FFR approaches was 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI} : 0.62-0.83]. As for the revascularisation planning, agreements in the target vessels for PCI and CABG were substantial for both revascularisation modes (Cohen's kappa=0.72 [95% CI: 0.66-0.78] and 0.72 [95% CI: 0.66-0.78], respectively). The team assigned to the QFR approach provided consistent recommended revascularisation modes even after being made aware of the FFR data (Cohen's kappa=0.95 [95% CI:0.90-1.00]). QFR provided feasible physiological data in Heart Team discussions to determine the optimal revascularisation strategy for MVD. The QFR and FFR approaches agreed substantially in terms of treatment recommendations.

Cardiac Surgery After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Trends and Outcomes

BackgroundReports of cardiac operations after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and early TAVR explantation are increasing. The purpose of this report is to document trends and outcomes of cardiac surgery after initial TAVR. MethodsThe Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database was queried for all adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery after a previously placed TAVR between January 2012 and March 2023. This identified an overall cohort and 2 subcohorts: nonaortic valve operations and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) after previous TAVR. Cohorts were examined with descriptive statistics, trend analyses, and 30-day outcomes. ResultsOf 5457 patients who were identified, 2485 (45.5%) underwent non-SAVR cardiac surgery, and 2972 (54.5%) underwent SAVR. The frequency of cardiac surgery after TAVR increased 4235.3% overall and 144.6% per year throughout the study period. The incidence of operative mortality and stroke were 15.5% and 4.5%, respectively. Existing The Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk models performed poorly, because observed-to-expected mortality ratios were significantly >1.0. Among those undergoing SAVR after TAVR, increasing preoperative surgical urgency, age, dialysis, need for SAVR, and concomitant procedures were associated with increased mortality, whereas type of TAVR explant was not. ConclusionsThe need for cardiac surgery, including redo SAVR after TAVR, is increasing rapidly. Risks are higher, and outcomes are worse than predicted. These data should closely inform heart team decisions if TAVR is considered at lowering age and risk profiles in the absence of longitudinal evidence.

A study of ChatGPT in facilitating Heart Team decisions on severe aortic stenosis.

Multidisciplinary Heart Teams (HTs) play a central role in the management of valvular heart diseases. However, the comprehensive evaluation of patients' data can be hindered by logistical challenges, which in turn may affect the care they receive. This study aimed to explore the ability of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), to improve clinical decision-making and enhance the efficiency of HTs. Data from patients with severe aortic stenosis presented at HT meetings were retrospectively analysed. A standardised multiple-choice questionnaire, with 14 key variables, was processed by the OpenAI Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-4. AI-generated decisions were then compared to those made by the HT. This study included 150 patients, with ChatGPT agreeing with the HT's decisions 77% of the time. The agreement rate varied depending on treatment modality: 90% for transcatheter valve implantation, 65% for surgical valve replacement, and 65% for medical treatment. The use of LLMs offers promising opportunities to improve the HT decision-making process. This study showed that ChatGPT's decisions were consistent with those of the HT in a large proportion of cases. This technology could serve as a failsafe, highlighting potential areas of discrepancy when its decisions diverge from those of the HT. Further research is necessary to solidify our understanding of how AI can be integrated to enhance the decision-making processes of HTs.

Long-term outcomes and quality of life following implementation of dedicated mitral valve Heart Team decisions for patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation in tertiary cardiovascular care center.

This study was purposed to investigate which treatment strategy was associated with the most favourable prognosis for patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) following Heart Team (HT)-decisions implementation. In this retrospective study, long-term outcomes of patients with severe MR qualified after HT discussion to: optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone, OMT and MitraClip (MC) procedure or OMT and mitral valve replacement (MVR) were evaluated. The primary endpoint was defined as cardiovascular (CV) death and the secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarctions (MI), strokes, hospitalizations for heart failure exacerbation and CV events during a mean (standard deviation [SD]) follow-up of 29 (15) months. From 2016 to 2019, 176 HT meetings were held and a total of 157 participants (mean age [SD] = 71.0 [9.2], 63.7% male) with severe MR and completely implemented HT decisions (OMT, MC or MVR for 53, 58 and 46 patients, respectively) were included into final analysis. Comparing OMT, MC and MVR groups statistically significant differences between the implemented procedures and occurrence of primary and secondary endpoints with the most frequent in OMT-group were observed (p < 0.05). However, for interventional strategy MC was non-inferior to MVR for all endpoints (p > 0.05). General health status assessed at the end of follow-up were significantly the lowest for MVR, then for MC and the highest for OMT-group (p < 0.01). In the present study it was demonstrated that after careful HT evaluation of patients with severe MR at high risk of surgery, percutaneous strategy (MC) can be considered as equivalent to surgical treatment (MVR) with non-inferior outcomes.

Five-year outcomes in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing surgery or percutaneous intervention

The outcomes from real-life clinical studies regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) are still poorly investigated. In this retrospective study we assessed 5-year outcomes: primary, secondary endpoints and quality of life of 1035 individuals with severe coronary artery disease (CAD) treated either with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)—356 patients or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)—679 patients according to the recommendation of a local Heart Team (HT). At 5 years no significant difference in overall mortality and rates of myocardial infarctions (MI) were observed between CABG and PCI cohorts (11.0% vs. 13.4% for PCI, P = 0.27 and 9.6% vs. 12.8% for PCI, P = 0.12, respectively). The incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), mainly driven by increased rates of repeat revascularization (RR) were higher in PCI-cohort than in CABG-group (56.1% vs. 40.4%, P < 0.01 and 26.8% vs. 12.6%, P < 0.01, respectively), while CABG-patients experienced stroke more often (7.3% vs. 3.1% for PCI, P < 0.01). In real-life practice with long-term follow-up, none of the two revascularization modalities implemented following HT decisions showed overwhelming superiority: occurrence of death and MI were similar, rates of RR favoured CABG, while incidence of strokes advocated PCI.

Single-Center Experience with the Balloon-Expandable Myval Transcatheter Aortic Valve System in Patients with Bicuspid Anatomy: Procedural and 30-Day Follow-Up.

Aims: To report our single-center data regarding the initial 52 consecutive patients with a bicuspid aortic valve who underwent a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) procedure using the new balloon-expandable MYVAL system. The focus is on reporting procedural details and outcomes over the 30-day postoperative period. Methods: From December 2019 to July 2023, 52 consecutive patients underwent a TAVI procedure with bicuspid anatomy. All patients had moderate to-high surgical risk or were unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement based on the Heart Team's decision. Outcomes were analyzed according to the VARC-2 criteria. The results of bicuspid patients were compared to patients with tricuspid anatomy in the overall study group, and further analysis involved a comparison between 52 pairs after propensity score matching. The device performance was evaluated using transthoracic echocardiography. Data collection was allowed by the Local Ethical Committee. Results: The mean age was 71 ± 7.1 years, and 65.4% were male. The mean Euroscore II and STS score were 3.3 ± 3.2 and 5.2 ± 3.3, respectively. Baseline characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were well balanced even in the unmatched comparison. Procedures were significantly longer in the bicuspid group and resulted in a significantly higher ARI index. All relevant anatomic dimensions based on the CT scans were significantly higher in bicuspid anatomy, including a higher implantation angulation, a higher rate of horizontal aorta and a higher proportion of patients with aortopathy. In the unmatched bicuspid vs. tricuspid comparison, postprocedural outcomes were as follows: in-hospital mortality 0% vs. 1.4% (p = 0.394), device success 100% vs. 99.1% (p = 0.487), TIA 1.9% vs. 0% (p = 0.041), stroke 1.9% vs. 0.9% (p = 0.537), major vascular complication 3.8% vs. 2.3% (p = 0.530), permanent pacemaker implantation 34% vs. 30.4% (p = 0.429), and cardiac tamponade 0% vs. 0.5% (p = 0.624). In the propensity-matched bicuspid vs. tricuspid comparison, postprocedural outcomes were as follows: in-hospital mortality 0% vs. 0%, device success 100% vs. 100%, TIA 1.9% vs. 0% (p = 0.315), stroke 1.9% vs. 0.9% (p = 0.315), major vascular complication 3.8% vs. 0% (p = 0.475), permanent pacemaker implantation 34% vs. 24% (p = 0.274), and cardiac tamponade 0% vs. 0%. There was no annular rupture nor need for second valve or severe aortic regurgitation in both the unmatched and matched comparison. The peak and mean aortic gradients did not differ at discharge and at 30-day follow-up between the two groups regardless of whether the comparison was unmatched or matched. There were no paravalvular leakages (moderate or above) in the bicuspid patients. Intermediate and extra sizes of the Myval THV system used a significantly higher proportion in bicuspid anatomy with a significantly higher oversize percentage in tricuspid anatomy. Conclusions: The TAVI procedure using the Myval THV system in patients with significant aortic stenosis and bicuspid aortic valve anatomy is safe and effective. Hemodynamic parameters do not differ between tricuspid and bicuspid patients. However, the permanent pacemaker implantation rate is higher than expected; its relevance on long-term survival is controversial.

Contemporary guideline-directed management of patients with severe aortic valve stenosis.

Both surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are Class Ia recommended therapies for specific subgroups of severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients in the latest 2021 European guidelines. We aimed to report on the multidisciplinary Heart Team evaluation process and real-world practice of treating severe symptomatic AS in East Denmark in the context of the latest European guideline recommendations. All consecutive patients with severe AS referred for intervention in 2021 (N=672) were discussed in a multidisciplinary Heart Team meeting. All patients (100%) had a cardiac computed tomography (CT) analysis prior to the meeting. Baseline characteristics, Heart Team decision-making, final treatment and 30-day clinical outcomes were prospectively recorded. The majority of severe AS patients (N=456, 68%) were referred for TAVI following discussion in the Heart Team. Ultimately, 94% of patients (N=632) received the Heart Team-recommended treatment. Patients undergoing TAVI (N=439) were significantly older (78.4±6.7 vs 67.2±8.3 years; p<0.001) and more comorbid than patients undergoing SAVR (N=189). The overall 30-day clinical outcomes were satisfactory for both treatment groups (overall 30-day mortality: 1.1%). The mean index hospitalisation length was markedly longer in the SAVR group (8.6±8.3 days) as compared to the TAVI group (1.8±3.2 days). TAVI was routinely performed in low surgical risk patients in 2021 with two-thirds of all severe AS patients undergoing TAVI, thereby applying the latest European guidelines. A dedicated Heart Team meeting, including CT evaluation for all AS patients, is needed to make individualised management decisions in this new era of aortic valve interventions.

Early mitral valve repair surgery versus active surveillance in patients with asymptomatic severe primary mitral regurgitation; insights from the Dutch AMR registry

Abstract Background Management of asymptomatic patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) and preserved left ventricular function is still a challenging clinical entity. According to international guidelines, early mitral valve repair (MVR) surgery and active surveillance with facilitated surgery are both possible treatment strategies. Conflicting evidence is available on the number of patients that reach an indication for facilitated surgery during follow-up in the active surveillance strategy group [1, 2]. In the multicenter Dutch AMR registry, asymptomatic MR patients were allocated to either strategy according to the heart team decision [3]. In this registry there was a low threshold to perform additional testing (i.e. cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, holter monitoring and/or cardiopulmonary exercise testing). Purpose To prospectively assess the percentage of MR patients undergoing facilitated surgery during a long-term active surveillance strategy. Methods Since 2013, 99 patients with severe primary MR were included in the Dutch AMR Registry in 5 medical centers. Enrollment for early surgery or active surveillance was based on ESC guidelines and heart team decision. During long term follow-up, we assessed primary endpoints for both groups; occurrence of atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular accident, heart failure, MVR surgery and cardiovascular/non-cardiovascular death. In particular, we assessed the number and timing of patients that underwent facilitated surgery in the active surveillance group. Results In total, 71 patients were allocated to the active surveillance and 28 to the early surgery group. 39 Patients in the active surveillance group reached a primary endpoint including 3 deaths (2 cardiovascular and 1 non-cardiovascular) (Figure 1). In the early surgery group, 4 patients reached a primary endpoint including 2 cardiovascular deaths. Over a mean follow-up time of 4.4 years, 36 patients (51%) of the active surveillance population underwent facilitated surgery due to either symptomatic or asymptomatic triggers (Table 1). Conclusions In the Dutch AMR registry, 51% of MR patients under active surveillance needed facilitated surgery within 4.4 years. Approximately half of these patients were still asymptomatic when developing an indication for surgery. Cardiovascular mortality rates were similar between the two treatment strategies. This result shows that active surveillance can be safely accomplished in asymptomatic severe MR patients. The Dutch AMR registry will further elucidate 1) whether MR patients can be stratified at baseline to either strategy based on additional testing and 2) whether facilitated surgery is non-inferior to early surgery in terms of surgical outcome, quality of life and long-term survival. For now, the current results support an active surveillance strategy in selected asymptomatic MR patients based on guidelines since half of patients are still free of symptoms without guideline indications for surgery.Figure 1Table 1

Real-world outcome and long-term survival analysis after trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) - does age matter?

Abstract Background Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the treatment of choice in elderly patients irrespective of surgical risk. Since a clear cut-off in age is still a matter of debate during heart team decision making between TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), outcome data of younger patients undergoing TAVI due to high surgical risk are of great clinical interest. Thus, the current study aimed to compare outcome and long-term survival data in typical elderly versus younger TAVI patients. Methods and Results This single-center outcome and up to 2-year survival analysis reports data of 619 patients (mean age: 79 ± 7 years; 50% female; mean STS score 4.7 ± 3.9%) that underwent transfemoral TAVI between August 2016 and September 2020. The cohort was classified into typical elderly (&amp;gt; 70 years, n=542) and younger (≤ 70 years, n=77) patients. Mortality rates were available for all patients at 30 days, 1 year and 2 years after TAVI. The STS score was 5.0 ± 4.0% in elderly compared to 2.8 ± 2.2% in younger subjects (p &amp;lt; 0.001). The main devices implanted were the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 (61% in) and the self-expanding Medtronic EvolutR (36%) device without differences between the groups (p=n.s.). The procedural success rate in the total cohort was &amp;gt; 99% and we identified the following prevalence rates of peri- and postprocedural complications (each in comparison between elderly vs. younger patients): acute vascular complications - 6.1% vs. 5.4% (p=n.s.); bleedings requirement of transfusion - 9.2% vs. 2.7% (p=0.059); disabling strokes - 2.3% vs. 1.4% (p=n.s.); requirement of new pacemakers - 11.1% vs. 3.9% (p=0,052) and acute kidney injuries - 2.7% vs. 1.4% (p=n.s.). At the 6 weeks follow-up, both, elderly and younger patients reported improvement of symptoms (NYHA class), which was underlined by a significant decrease in brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and improved 6-minutes’ walk distances (SMWD) (p&amp;lt;0.001 for each parameter). While there were no differences between the groups for NYHA class and BNP (p=n.s.), SMWD was higher in younger patients (p&amp;lt;0.001). Interestingly, Kaplan Meier analysis revealed the following short- and long-term mortality rates (each in comparison between elderly vs. younger patients): 3.4% vs. 1.3% after 30 days (p=n.s.); 17.2% vs. 10.5% after 1 year (p=n.s.) and 25.2% vs. 17.1% after 2 years (p=n.s.; figure 1). Conclusion The results of this real-world analysis demonstrate that TAVI in younger patients not eligible for surgery after heart team evaluation is safe and not inferior compared to a typical elderly cohort, especially regarding complication rates, clinical outcomes and mortality until 2 years after implantation. Thus, younger age alone should not discard TAVI as therapeutic option for AS in cases with either high surgical risk or other individual factors speaking against surgery at the time when treatment is indicated.

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)

IntroductionThe 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...

TCT-464 5-Year Outcomes in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Revascularization Following Heart Team Decisions

TCT-464 5-Year Outcomes in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Revascularization Following Heart Team Decisions

The impact of left circumflex coronary artery ostium stenosis on outcomes for patients after percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main disease.

The impact of left circumflex coronary artery (LCX) ostium atherosclerosis in left main coronary artery (LM) bifurcation disease is not well-known. The study aimed to assess whether the involvement of LCX ostium carries prognostic implications in patients undergoing unprotected LM percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Consecutive 564 patients with unprotected LM (ULMCA) disease who underwent LM PCI between January 2015 and February 2021, with at least 1 year of available follow-up were included in the study. The first group was composed of 145 patients with ULMCA disease with LCX ostium stenosis, and the second group consisted of 419 patients with ULMCA disease without LCX ostium stenosis. Patients in the group with ULMCA disease with LCX ostium stenosis were significantly older and had more comorbidities. The two-stent technique was used more often in the group with LCX ostium stenosis (62.8% vs. 14.6%; P <0.001). During 7-year follow-up, all-cause mortality did not differ significantly between groups with and without LCX ostium stenosis (P = 0.50). The use of one-stent or two-stent technique also did not impact mortality in patients with LCX ostial lesions (P = 0.75). Long-term mortality subanalysis for three groups of patients: (1) patients with LM plus LCX ostium stenosis; (2) LM plus left anterior descending artery (LAD) ostium stenosis; (3) LM plus LCX ostium plus LAD ostium stenosis also did not differ significantly (P = 0.63). LCX ostium involvement in LM disease PCI is not associated with adverse long-term outcomes, which is highly beneficial for the Heart Team's decision-making process.

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

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

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. 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. 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%. 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.

Follow-Up and Outcome after Coronary Bypass Surgery Preceded by Coronary Stent Implantation.

Guidelines on myocardial revascularization define recommendations for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Only little information exists on long-term follow-up and quality of life (QoL) after CABG preceded by PCI. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of prior PCI on outcome and QoL in patients with stable coronary artery disease who underwent CABG. In our retrospective study, CABG patients were divided in: CABG preceded by PCI: PCI-first (PCF), and CABG-only (CO) groups. The PCF group was further divided in guideline-conform (GCO) and guideline nonconform (GNC) subgroups, according to the SYNTAX score (2014 European Society of Cardiology [ESC]/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery [EACTS] guidelines). Thirty days mortality, major adverse cardiac events, and QoL using the European Quality-of-Life-5 Dimensions were evaluated. A total of 997 patients were analyzed, of which 784 underwent CABG without (CO), and 213 individuals with prior PCI (PCF). The latter group consisted of 67 patients being treated in accordance (GCO), and 24 in discordance (GNC) to the 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines. Reinfarction (PCF: 3.8% vs. CO: 1.0%; p = 0.024), re-angiography (PCF: 17.6% vs. CO: 9.0%; p = 0.004), and re-PCI (PCF: 10.4% vs. CO: 3.0%; p < 0.001) were observed more frequently in PCF patients. Also, patients reported better health status in the CO compared to PCF group (CO: 72.48 ± 19.31 vs. PCF: 68.20 ± 17.86; p = 0.01). Patients from the guideline nonconform subgroup reported poorer health status compared to the guideline-conform group (GNC: 64.23 ± 14.56 vs. GCO: 73.42 ± 17.66; p = 0.041) and were more likely to require re-PCI (GNC: 18.8% vs. GCO: 2.4%; p = 0.03). Also, GNC patients were more likely to have left main stenosis (GCO: 19.7% vs. GNC: 37.5%; p < 0.001) and showed higher preinterventional SYNTAX score (GCO: 18.63 ± 9.81 vs. GNC: 26.67 ± 5.07; p < 0.001). PCI preceding CABG is associated with poorer outcomes such as reinfarction, re-angiography, and re-PCI, but also worse health status and higher rehospitalization. Nevertheless, results were better when PCI was guideline-conformant. This data should impact the Heart Team decision.

Changing haemodynamic status of patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Delays in the diagnosis and referral of aortic stenosis (AS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have affected the haemodynamic status of AS patients. We aimed to compare clinical and haemodynamic characteristics of severe AS patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) before the pandemic versus two subsequent periods. This study compared three 1‑year historical cohorts: apre-COVID-19 group (PCOV), a1st-year COVID-19 group (COV-Y1) and a2nd-year COVID-19 group (COV-Y2). The main parameters were baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP). Demographics, procedural characteristics and 30-day clinical outcomes were assessed. The transition time between heart team decision and TAVI was examined. Pairwise group comparisons were performed (PCOV vs COV-1Y and COV-1Y vs COV-2Y). Atotal of 720patients were included with 266, 249 and 205patients in the PCOV, COV-Y1 and COV-Y2groups, respectively. BAV was performed in 28patients (4%). NYHA class did not differ across the cohorts. Compared to PCOV, LVEF was slightly lower in COV-Y1 (58% (49-60%) vs 57% (45-60%), p = 0.03); no difference was observed when comparing COV-Y1 and COV-Y2. LVEDP was higher in COV-Y1 than in PCOV (20 mm Hg (16-26 mm Hg) vs 17 mm Hg (13-24 mm Hg), p = 0.01). No difference was found when comparing LVEDP between COV-Y1 and COV-Y2. Thirty-day mortality did not differ between groups. Transition time was reduced in the COVID era. Duration of hospital stay declined over the study period. Patients undergoing TAVI during the COVID-19 pandemic had more advanced AS illustrated by lower LVEF and higher LVEDP, but there were no differences in clinical outcome. The TAVI pathway became more efficient.