Multidisciplinary Heart Team Approach Research Articles

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.

Propensity Matched Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Mitral Surgery: Does a Heart-Team Approach Eliminate Female Gender as an Independent Risk Factor?

There is increasing evidence that female gender is an independent risk factor for cardiac surgery. Minimally invasive mitral surgery (MIV) has proven to have excellent long-term results, but little is known about gender-dependent outcomes. The aim of our study was to analyze our heart team's decision-based MIV-specialized cohort. In-hospital and follow-up data were retrospectively collected. The cohort was divided into gender groups and propensity-matched groups. Between 22 July 2013 and 31 December 2022, 302 consecutive patients underwent MIV. Before matching, the total cohort showed that women were older, had a higher EuroSCORE II, were more symptomatic, and had more complex valve pathology and tricuspid regurgitation resulting in more valve replacements and tricuspid repairs. Intensive and hospital stays were longer. In-hospital deaths (n = 3, all women) were comparable, with more atrial fibrillation in women. The median follow-up time was 3.44 (0.008-8.9) years. The ejection fraction, NYHA, and recurrent regurgitation were low and comparable and atrial fibrillation more frequent in women. The calculated 5-year survival and freedom from re-intervention were comparable (p = 0.9 and p = 0.2). Propensity matching compared 101 well-balanced pairs; women still had fewer resections and more atrial fibrillation. During the follow-up, women had a better ejection fraction. The calculated 5-year survival and freedom from re-intervention were comparable (p = 0.3 and p = 0.3). Despite women being older and sicker, with more complex valve pathology and subsequent replacement, early and mid-term mortality and the need for reoperation were low and comparable before and after propensity matching, which might be the result of the MIV setting combined with our patient-tailored decision-making. We believe that a multidisciplinary heart team approach is crucial to optimize patient outcomes in MIV, and it might also reduce the widely reported increased surgical risk in female patients. Further studies are needed to prove our findings.

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

IntroductionA 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...

Impact of advanced imaging techniques on preoperative planning in cardiac surgery.

Review how advanced imaging techniques and a multidisciplinary heart team approach are used to evaluate complex cardiac structural pathology. Single-center retrospective case series. Cardiac computed tomography angiography in addition to transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography impacts pre-procedural planning and procedural success.

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.

Science, Medicine, and the Anesthesiologist

Science, Medicine, and the Anesthesiologist

Structural Transcatheter Cardiac Interventions in the Cardio-Oncology Population

Modern cancer therapies have resulted in prolonged survival and decreased mortality for many types of cancer. Consequently, cancer patients with concomitant cardiovascular disease (CVD) present prior to diagnosis of cancer, resulting from various forms of cancer therapy, or developing after cancer remission are at higher risk for development of cardiovascular-associated morbidity and mortality. Management of CVD, particularly structural heart disease, in this patient population is challenging and associated with elevated surgical risk. Minimally invasive transcatheter procedures have emerged as lower risk treatment modalities that have been shown to be safe and efficacious. This review will evaluate the current literature on percutaneous management of aortic stenosis (AS), mitral regurgitation (MR), tricuspid regurgitation (TR), and intracardiac thrombus (ICTE) or masses in cancer patients. Multiple cohort- and registry-based studies have demonstrated safe and efficacious implementation of transcatheter interventions for the management of severe AS and MR in cancer patients. The development of transcatheter interventions for severe TR is promising and may also be considered for this high-risk patient population. Interestingly, management of ICTE and cardiac masses has also been achieved with a novel transcatheter approach. While a multidisciplinary heart team approach is necessary to properly manage cancer patients with structural heart disease and ICTE, more robust registry-based and prospective clinical trials are required to meet the needs of a rapidly growing cardio-oncology patient population.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Era.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Era.

Multidisciplinary Heart Team Approach for Complex Coronary Artery Disease: Single Center Clinical Presentation.

BackgroundThe 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 ResultsOne 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.ConclusionsIntegrating 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.

Severe Mitral Annular Calcification and Mitral Valve Surgery: An Algorithmic Approach to Management

The management of mitral valve dysfunction in the setting of substantial mitral annular calcification (MAC) remains controversial and is one of the most challenging problems in mitral valve surgery. The physiopathology of severe MAC is related to a combination of progressive, degenerative and active calcium deposition in the annulus that is often multifactorial, but largely attributable to aging and chronic disease conditions. Given the fact that overall life expectancy in the elderly population are increasing, it is imperative to understand contemporary and future therapeutic options since this MAC is likely going to be a frequent problem faced by the next generation of cardiac surgeons. This review provides a relevant synthesis of existing literature and aims to assess the efficacy of existing therapeutic choices for patients with mitral valve dysfunction and 'big' MAC with a goal of minimizing postoperative complications (e.g. left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, prosthetic paravalvular leak, valve embolization, and stroke) that can be achieved via a multidisciplinary heart team approach.

Enhanced outcomes for coronary artery disease obtained by a multidisciplinary heart team approach.

We implemented our multidisciplinary heart team (MHT) approach since 2012 for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and assessed the effectiveness of it by comparing outcomes in patients treated before and after the introduction of the MHT approach. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for CAD were performed in 802 and 57 patients from 2009 to 2011 in Group NH, and were performed in 867 and 160 patients from 2012 to 2014 in Group H, respectively. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiac-related readmission and target vessel repeat revascularisation (TVR) for PCI or revascularisation on grafted vessels for CABG. MACCE occurred significantly more often in Group NH than in Group H at 3years postoperatively (28.1% vs 21.1%) (log rank P = 0.001). Cox regression analysis showed that the MHT approach [hazard ratio (HR), 0.737; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60-0.91; P = 0.004] and ejection fraction (HR 0.976; 95% CI, 0.97-0.98; P < 0.0001) were associated with significantly lower rates of MACCE events, while SYNTAX score (HR 1.023; 95% CI 1.00-1.03, P < 0.0001) and EuroSCORE II (HR 1.014, 95% CI 0.60-0.91, P = 0.004) were associated with a higher rate of MACCE events. Our MHT approach was able to reduce the MACCE events of treatment for CAD. The dedicated MHT approach might be beneficial for patients with CAD.

Multidisciplinary decision-making in mitral valve disease: the mitral valve heart team.

BackgroundAlthough decision-making using the heart-team approach is apparently intuitive and has a class I recommendation in most recent guidelines, supportive data is still lacking. The current study aims to demonstrate the individualised clinical pathway for mitral valve disease patients and to evaluate the outcome of all patients referred to the dedicated mitral valve heart team.MethodsAll patients who were evaluated for mitral valve pathology with or without concomitant cardiac disease between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016 were prospectively followed and included. Patients were evaluated, and a treatment strategy was determined by the dedicated mitral valve heart team.ResultsOne hundred and fifty-eight patients were included; 67 patients were treated surgically (isolated and concomitant surgery), 20 by transcatheter interventions and 71 conservatively. Surgically treated patients had a higher 30-day mortality rate (4.4%), which decreased when specified to a dedicated surgeon (1.7%) and in primary, elective cases (0%). This was also observed for major adverse events within 30 days. Residual mitral regurgitation >grade 2 was more frequent in the catheter-based intervention group (23.5%) compared to the surgical group (4.8%).ConclusionIn conclusion, the implementation of a multidisciplinary heart team for mitral valve disease is a valuable approach for the selection of patients for different treatment modalities. Our research group will focus on a future comparative study using historical cohorts to prove the potential superiority of the dedicated multidisciplinary heart-team approach.

Coronary Revascularization in High-Risk Stable Patients With Significant Comorbidities: Challenges in Decision-Making.

There is a growing cohort of complex high-risk patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) who present for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). These patients are older, have complex coronary disease, and a substantial comorbidity burden including frailty. The procedural risks and outcomes of CABG and PCI in these patients are more difficult to assess based on the available literature, which has generally studied a younger population with a lower comorbidity burden. There have been initiatives to recalibrate and expand risk models derived from procedural registries to inform the care of complex higher-risk patients, including patients "turned down" for CABG. There is greater recognition of the need for improved assessment of risk, quality, and benefits of coronary revascularization in higher-risk SIHD patients with a substantial comorbidity burden. Clinicians and patients should be aware that there are significant evidence gaps regarding revascularization in complex high-risk patients. The limitations of procedural-derived risk scores should be understood when presenting treatment options. Future randomized controlled trials and expanded registries are greatly desired and should be achievable. Meanwhile, a multidisciplinary heart team approach should be employed for proper decision-making.

Abstract 17362: A Multidisciplinary Heart Team Approach to High Risk Transvenous Pacemaker and Defibrillator Lead Extraction Improves Mortality

Introduction: There is a risk of serious complications with high-risk lead extraction (LE) that may increase mortality. Current guidelines do not provide definitive guidance on collaborative involvement of cardiac surgery as compared to other procedures such as TAVR procedures. We report a single center experience of the benefits of a collaborative approach between cardiac surgery and cardiac electrophysiology (EP). Hypothesis: MDHT will improve outcomes in LE Methods: High risk lead extractions had dwell times of at least 4 years for pacemaker leads and 2 years for ICD leads. A multidisciplinary heart team (MDHT) was created based on the TAVR model that includes a combined lead management clinic and a monthly multidisciplinary conference. Prior to MDHT creation, high risk lead extractions were performed either in the hybrid operating room (OR) and cardiology procedure lab with a surgeon on call as needed. After the MDHT creation all cases were performed in the hybrid operating room by a cardiac surgeon, cardiac anesthesiologist and EP together with an interventional radiologist readily available. Results: Prior to MDHT, 169 patients underwent 344 leads extractions. There were six major procedural complications (3.6%) that included 2 procedural deaths (1.2%) during that period (SVC tear, Tricuspid valve avulsion). Following the creation of MDHT, there have been 47 cases performed with 85 leads extracted. There have been two complications requiring surgical repair (one SVC laceration, one RV laceration), which were surgically repaired. With the creation of a MDHT, the rate of major complications was unchanged (Pre vs. Post MDHT 3.6% vs. 4.3%) but there was a lower mortality rate (Pre vs. Post MDHT 1.2% vs. 0%). Conclusions: High risk lead extraction had a fixed complication rate at our institution however a MDHT decreased mortality. A structured multidisciplinary approach, involving EP and cardiac surgery, decreased mortality in a medium sized lead extraction center and should be considered at all centers.

A Decade Later, Continued Transformation of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

The emergence of transcatheter aortic valve replacement as an effective treatment option in appropriately selected patients with severe aortic valve stenosis has proven to be revolutionary to the fields of interventional cardiology and cardiac surgery. As percutaneous technologies continue to mature and indications for transcatheter valve therapy concurrently expand, the contemporary management of valvular heart disease necessitates a multidisciplinary heart team approach that considers the indication, multimodality imaging, anesthetic and procedural strategy, and selection of the appropriate valve prosthesis for each patient. We provide an overview of the historical development of transcatheter aortic valve replacement, commercially available and investigative devices, landmark clinical trial data, and developments on the horizon that aim to further advance the care of patients with aortic valve disease.

Novel fast-track recovery protocol for alternative access transcatheter aortic valve replacement: application to non-femoral approaches.

Although the transfemoral approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement is the preferred choice, alternative access remains indicated for inadequate iliofemoral vessels. We report the successful implementation of a novel fast-track (FT) protocol for patients undergoing alternative access transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with conventional controls. Between September 2014 and January 2017, 31 and 23 patients underwent alternative access transcatheter aortic valve replacement under FT and pre-fast-track (p-FT) protocols, respectively. Comparisons of outcomes (in terms of mortality, complications, readmissions and resource utilization) were made before and after the implantation of the FT protocol in September 2015. Overall, mean age was 78.7 years in FT and 79.6 years in p-FT patients (P = 0.71). There were no significant differences in procedural (3.2% vs 13.0%, P = 0.301) or 90-day mortality (3.2% vs 17.4%, P = 0.151) between the FT and p-FT groups, respectively. Compared with p-FT patients, FT patients had significantly shorter intensive care unit stays (12 h vs 27 h, P = 0.006) and a trend towards more discharges within 3 days (41.9% vs 17.4%, P = 0.081). Resource utilization analyses projected a 56% and 17% reduction in the mean intensive care unit time (hours) per 100 patients and the total length of stay (days) per 100 patients, respectively, with respect to the FT approach. This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of the novel FT protocol for alternative access transcatheter aortic valve replacement, resulting in shorter intensive care unit stays, without increasing procedural complications or readmissions. With the expected increase in transcatheter aortic valve replacement utilization, FT protocols should be integrated with a multidisciplinary heart team approach to enhance patient recovery and optimize resource utilization.

Revascularization heart team recommendations as an adjunct to appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease.

To evaluate how a comprehensive evidence-based clinical review by a multidisciplinary revascularization heart team on treatment decisions for revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease using SYNTAX scores combined with Society of Thoracic Surgeons-derived clinical variables can be additive to the utilization of Appropriate Use Criteria for coronary revascularization. Decision-making regarding the use of revascularization for coronary artery disease has come under major scrutiny due to inappropriate overuse of revascularization. There is little data in routine clinical practice evaluating how a structured, multidisciplinary heart team approach may be used in combination with the Appropriate Use Criteria for revascularization. From May 1, 2012 to January 1, 2015, multidisciplinary revascularization heart team meetings were convened to discuss evidence-based management of 301 patients with complex coronary artery disease. Heart team recommendations were adjudicated with the Appropriate Use Criteria for coronary revascularization for each clinical scenario using the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions' Quality Improvement Toolkit (SCAI-QIT) Appropriate Use Criteria App. Concordance of the Heart Team to Appropriate Use Criteria had a 99.3% appropriate primary indication for coronary revascularization. Among patients who underwent percutaneous revascularization, 34.9% had an inappropriate or uncertain indication as recommended by the Heart Team. Patients with uncertain or inappropriate percutaneous coronary interventions had significantly higher SYNTAX score (27.3 ± 6.6; 28.5 ± 5.5; 19.2 ± 6; P < 0.0001) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Predicted Risk of Mortality (6.1% ± 4.7%; 8.1% ± 6.3%; 3.7% ± 4.1%; P < 0.0081) compared to appropriate indications, frequently had concomitant forms of advanced comorbidities and frailty in the setting of symptomatic coronary artery disease. A formal, multidisciplinary revascularization heart team can provide proper validation for clinical decisions and should be considered in combination with the Appropriate Use Criteria for coronary revascularization to formulate revascularization strategies for individuals in a patient-centered fashion. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Continued expansion of the Heart Team concept.

The concept of a multidisciplinary Heart Team approach to treating cardiovascular disease has garnered increasing interest in recent years. This team-based approach has been a cornerstone of practice in other medical fields, such as oncology and solid organ transplantation. Advances in technology and new therapeutic strategies now offer multiple treatment options to patients with complex coronary artery or valvular heart disease, making therapeutic decision-making more challenging. There is a growing literature that use of a Heart Team for management of these complex cardiovascular diseases has demonstrated great merit. While the composition and implementation of Heart Team will vary, this multidisciplinary team-based approach will become the standard of care in cardiovascular medicine in the future.

The Year in Cardiology 2013: valvular heart disease (focus on catheter-based interventions)

2013 was the year of transcatheter heart valve interventions. Not least because of the 2012 European guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (VHD), the multidisciplinary heart team approach became an established concept. Decision-making, when a patient is too 'sick' for surgery and too 'healthy' for catheter-based interventions, is complex, since VHD is often seen at an older age and, as a consequence, there is a higher frequency of co-morbidity and frailty. However, before TAVI and other transcatheter heart valve interventions can be expanded to intermediate-risk patients, evidence in favour of this less invasive treatment has to be provided by upcoming randomized clinical trials.

Migration of the transcatheter valve into the left ventricle.

Migration of the transcatheter valve into the left ventricle.