The impact of Heart Team discussion on decision making for coronary revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease.
Aged
Coronary Artery Bypass
Coronary Artery Disease
/ surgery
Decision Making
Female
Humans
Interdisciplinary Communication
Male
Middle Aged
Myocardial Revascularization
/ methods
Patient Care Team
Patient Satisfaction
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Prospective Studies
Risk Factors
Treatment Outcome
Heart Team discussion
complex coronary artery disease
revascularization method
Journal
Journal of cardiac surgery
ISSN: 1540-8191
Titre abrégé: J Card Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8908809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
4
8
2020
medline:
1
12
2020
entrez:
4
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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). 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM
OBJECTIVE
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2719-2724Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Dubois C, De Schutter H, Leroy R, et al. Multidisciplinary work in oncology: population-based analysis for seven invasive tumours. Eur J Cancer Care. 2018;27(2):e12822.
Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):961-972.
Girasis C, Garg S, Räber L, et al. SYNTAX score and Clinical SYNTAX score as predictors of very long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: a substudy of SIRolimus-eluting stent compared with pacliTAXel-eluting stent for coronary revascularization (SIRTAX) trial. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(24):3115-3127.
Kappetein AP, Dawkins KD, Mohr FW, et al. Current percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting practices for three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease. Insights from the SYNTAX run-in phase. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;29(4):486-491.
Head SJ, Kaul S, Mack MJ, et al. The rationale for Heart Team decision-making for patients with stable, complex coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(32):2510-2518.
Sousa-Uva M, Neumann FJ, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guideli nes on myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg. 2019;55(1):4-90.
Shahian DM, O'Brien SM, Filardo G, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 1-coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88(1 suppl):S2-S22.
Almeida R, Almeida D, Centenaro M, Yassue A, Tonin L, Toigo J. Are the guidelines for coronary artery revascularization, according to the syntax score, being correctly applied, by a heart team? J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;10(suppl 1):A183.
Domingues CT, Milojevic M, Thuijs D, et al. Heart Team decision making and long-term outcomes for 1000 consecutive cases of coronary artery disease. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019;28(2):206-213.
Patel MR, Calhoon JH, Dehmer GJ, et al. ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2016 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology appropriate use criteria task force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24(2):439-463.
Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):629-638.
Boudriot E, Thiele H, Walther T, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main stem stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(5):538-545.
Park SJ, Kim YH, Park DW, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(18):1718-1727.
Park SJ, Ahn JM, Kim YH, et al. Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(13):1204-1212.
Mäkikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10061):2743-2752.
Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 2018;391(10124):939-948.
Holmes DR Jr, Rich JB, Zoghbi WA, Mack MJ. The heart team of cardiovascular care. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(9):903-907.
Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(25):2375-2384.
Abdulrahman M, Alsabbagh A, Kuntze T, Lauer B, Ohlow MA. Impact of hierarchy on multidisciplinary Heart-Team recommendations in patients with isolated multivessel coronary artery disease. J Clin Med. 2019;8:9.
Bonzel T, Schächinger V, Dörge H. Description of a Heart Team approach to coronary revascularization and its beneficial long-term effect on clinical events after PCI. Clin Res Cardiol. 2016;105(5):388-400.
Sanchez CE, Dota A, Badhwar V, et al. Revascularization heart team recommendations as an adjunct to appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;88(4):E103-E112.
Damman P, van 't Hof AW, Ten Berg JM, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: comments from the Dutch ACS working group. Neth Heart J. 2017;25(3):181-185.