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

Prognostic Impact of Implementation of Heart Team Approach on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Complex Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

In patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), treatment options include medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The decision between PCI and CABG depends on disease severity and revascularization risk. Guidelines promote a heart team approach (HTA) with shared decision-making, yet PCI remains prevalent.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 753 patients with complex CAD (left main or multivessel disease and SYNTAX score ≥ 33) between January 2019 and April 2022. We evaluated a quality improvement program featuring a clinical decision flow map, a support system for risk score calculations, and a standard operating procedure for HTA. We compared HTA activation, revascularization strategy choices, and long-term cardiovascular outcomes (composite endpoint: death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization) between patients treated with HTA (HTA group, n = 448) and without HTA (non-HTA group, n = 304). The program significantly increased HTA activation (from 26.4% to 61.7%) and CABG selection (from 11.1% to 20.4%). The HTA group had better CABG recommendations and choices (75.5% vs. 37.2%, and 26.8% vs. 7.2%, respectively), with a lower incidence of the primary composite endpoint (18.1% vs. 42.4%).

CONCLUSION

A quality improvement program enhances HTA activation and revascularization strategies, leading to improved cardiovascular outcomes in complex CAD patients.

Do the Few Dictate Care for the Many? Revascularisation Considerations That Go Beyond the Guidelines

The burden of coronary artery disease (CAD) is large and growing, commonly presenting with comorbidities and older age. Patients may benefit from coronary revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), yet half of patients with CAD who would benefit from revascularisation fall outside the eligibility criteria of trials to date. As such, the choice of revascularisation procedures varies depending on the CAD anatomy and complexity, surgical risk and comorbidities, the patient's preferences and values, and the treating team's expertise. The recent American guidelines on coronary revascularisation are comprehensive in describing recommendations for PCI, CABG, or conservative management in patients with CAD. However, individual challenging patient presentations cannot be fully captured in guidelines. The aim of this narrative review is to summarise common clinical scenarios that are not sufficiently described by contemporary clinical guidelines and trials in order to inform heart team members and trainees about the nuanced considerations and available evidence to manage such cases. We discuss clinical cases that fall beyond the current guidelines and summarise the relevant evidence evaluating coronary revascularisation for these patients. In addition, we highlight gaps in knowledge based on a lack of research (eg, ineligibility of certain patient populations), underrepresentation in research (eg, underenrollment of female and non-White patients), and the surge in newer minimally invasive and hybrid techniques. We argue that ultimately, evidence-based medicine, patient preference, shared decision making, and effective heart team communications are necessary to best manage complex CAD presentations potentially benefitting from revascularisation with CABG or PCI.

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.

Building and Optimizing the Interdisciplinary Heart Team

A multidisciplinary care team model, or Heart Team approach, has become a central tenet of cardiovascular care. Though initially applied to the management of heart transplantation and subsequently complex coronary artery disease, the Heart Team is now utilized broadly across cardiovascular medicine, including in the treatment of valvular disease, pulmonary embolism, cardiogenic shock, high-risk pregnancies in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, and adult congenital heart disease. The Heart Team model improves interdisciplinary collaboration among specialties, adherence to societal guidelines, and shared decision-making with patients and families. In this review, we highlight the development and rationale supporting the Heart Team model, address the challenges of implementing a multidisciplinary care team, and discuss the optimal methods to continue to build, optimize, and implement this approach.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

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

INTRODUCTION

A 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 intra-team decision instability existed in the guideline-based heart team protocol, and our standardised heart team protocol based on a mixed method study may improve decision stability. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of the standardised heart team protocol versus the guideline-based protocol on decision-making stability in stable complex coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Eighty-four eligible interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons or non-interventional cardiologists from 26 hospitals in China have been enrolled. They will be randomised to a standardised heart team protocol group or a guideline-based protocol group to make revascularisation decisions for 480 historic cases (from a prospective registry) with stable complex CAD. In the standardised group, we will establish 12 heart teams based on an evidence-based protocol, including specialist selection, specialist training, team composition, team training and a standardised meeting process. In the guideline-based group, we will organise 12 heart teams according to the guideline principles, including team composition and standardised meeting process. The primary outcome is the overall percent agreement in revascularisation decisions between heart teams within a group. To demonstrate the clinical implication of decision-making stability, we will further explore the association between decision stability and 1-year clinical outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Fuwai Hospital (No. 2019-1303). All participants have provided informed consent and all patients included as historic cases provided written informed consent at the time of entry to the prospective registry. 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

NCT05039567.

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.

Sex Differences in Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Coronary Artery Bypass Graft for Left Main Disease: From the DELTA Registries

Background

Controversy exists over whether sex has significant interaction with revascularization strategy for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Higher mortality has been reported among women treated with percutaneous coronary intervention compared with coronary artery bypass grafting.

Methods and Results

The DELTA (Drug‐Eluting Stents for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) and DELTA‐2 registries are international, multicentric registries evaluating the outcomes of subjects undergoing coronary revascularization for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accidents. The population consisted of 6253 patients, including 1689 (27%) women. Women were older and more likely to have diabetes and chronic kidney disease than men (P<0.05). At a median follow‐up of 29 months (interquartile range 12–49), a significant interaction between sex and revascularization strategy was observed for the primary end point (p_int=0.012) and all‐cause death (p_int=0.037). Among women, compared with percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with lower risk of the primary end point (event rate 9.5% versus 15.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35–0.79, P<0.001) and all‐cause death (event rate 5.6% versus 11.7% AHR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30–0.82) and no significant differences were observed in men.

Conclusions

In women undergoing coronary revascularization for unprotected left main coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with lower risk of death, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accidents whereas no significant differences between coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention were observed in men. Further dedicated studies are needed to determine the optimal revascularization strategy in women with unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

Exploring optimal heart team protocol to improve decision-making stability for complex coronary artery disease: a sequential explanatory mixed method study

AIMS

Current guidelines recommend a heart team in the decision making for patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the decision-making stability of these teams has not been evaluated and the optimum protocol is unknown. We assessed inter-team agreement for revascularization decision-making and influencing factors to inform the development of a heart team protocol.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This sequential, explanatory mixed methods study included (1) a cross-sectional quantitative study to assess inter-team agreement on treatment strategy for retrospectively enrolled complex CAD patients and (2) a qualitative study that used semi-structured interviews with heart team members to identify factors influencing decision-making discrepancy. We randomly selected 101 complex CAD patients. Sixteen specialists were randomly assigned to 4 heart teams to make decisions for these patients. The primary outcome kappa of inter-team decision-making agreement was moderate (kappa 0.58). Factors influencing decision-making were generated through inductive thematic analysis and were summarized by 3 themes (specialist quality, team composition, meeting process) and 10 subthemes. Recommendations of heart team implementation were generated based on qualitative and quantitative data at 5 levels: specialist selection, specialist training, team composition, team training, and meeting process. A detailed protocol on the integration of guidelines, previous experience and recommendations was generated to establish and deploy a qualified heart team.

CONCLUSIONS

Agreement between heart teams for revascularization decision-making in complex CAD patients was moderate. Potential factors associated with decision discrepancies were summarized and recommendations were generated. A detailed heart team protocol was designed and should be validated in future.

Health Care Analysis on Myocardial Revascularization in Patients with Chronic Coronary Artery Disease: The Multicenter REVASK Study: Design and Protocol

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are available for revascularization of coronary artery disease (CAD) with the aims to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and to improve disease-related quality of life in particular. The German National Care Guideline (NVL-cKHK) on chronic CAD recommends the establishment of so-called heart teams for decision making in myocardial revascularization to improve the quality of care. Preferred recommendations for PCI or CABG are given for different patient subgroups depending on patient characteristics, concomitant diseases, and coronary morphology. The myocardial revascularization study (REVASK) is a noninterventional cohort study on care of patients undergoing PCI or CABG based on retrospective statutory health insurance (SHI) routine data, registry data from the German Cardiac Society (DGK) resp., the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (DGTHG), combined with prospective primary data collection from health care providers and patients. The primary goal is to investigate whether and to which extent heart teams, consisting of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons, increase guideline adherence in decision making for myocardial revascularization. Ultimately the study project aims to improve patient care in terms of decision making for appropriate myocardial revascularization. Through the consistent implementation of the German National Care Guideline on chronic Coronary Artery Disease (NVL-cKHK) and the European Guidelines on myocardial revascularization, the reduction of morbidity, mortality and the reduced need for subsequent revascularization procedures are also desirable from a health economics perspective.

Heart Team/Guidelines Discordance Is Associated With Increased Mortality: Data From a National Survey of Revascularization in Patients With Complex Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Practice guidelines emphasize the role of the SYNTAX score (SS; Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) in choosing between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in cases of complex coronary artery disease. There is paucity of data on the implementation of these recommendations in daily practice, and on the consequences of guideline discordant revascularization.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective national survey of consecutive real world patients undergoing coronary revascularization for complex coronary artery disease according to decisions of local heart team at each center. SS was calculated at a dedicated CoreLab, and patients were classified as heart team/guidelines agreement/discordant.

RESULTS

Nine hundred seventy-nine patients (571 percutaneous coronary intervention and 408 coronary artery bypass graft) were included. Mean age was 65 years and the mean SS was 22. Heart team/guidelines discordance occurred in 170 (17.3%) patients. Independent predictors of heart team/guidelines discordance were age, admission to a center with no cardiac surgery service, SS, and previous percutaneous coronary intervention/myocardial infarction. A multivariate model based on these characteristics had a C statistic of 0.83. Thirty-day outcomes were similar in the agreement/discordance groups, however, heart team/guidelines discordance was associated with a significant increase in 3 year mortality (17.6% versus 8.4%; hazard ratio, 2.05; P=0.002) after multivariate adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Heart team/guidelines discordance is not infrequent in real world patients with complex coronary artery disease undergoing revascularization. This is more likely to occur in elderly patients, those with more complex coronary disease (as determined by the SS), and those treated at centers with no cardiac surgery service. These patients have a higher risk for mid-term mortality.

The Role of the Heart Team in Patients with Diffuse Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

BACKGROUND

 In patients eligible for coronary artery bypass grafting, no data assess the importance of the Heart Team in programming the best surgical strategy for patients with diffuse coronary artery disease (CAD). This study aims to determine the contribution of the Heart Team in predicting the feasibility of coronary artery bypass graft and angiographic surgical success in these patients based on visual angiographic analysis.

METHODS

 Patients with diffuse and severe CAD undergoing incomplete coronary artery bypass graft surgery were prospectively included. One-year postoperative coronary angiograms were obtained to evaluate graft occlusion. Two clinical cardiologists, two cardiovascular surgeons, and one interventional cardiologist retrospectively analyzed preoperative angiograms. A subjective scale was applied at a single moment to quantify the chance of successful coronary artery bypass grafting for each coronary territory with anatomical indication for revascularization. Based on individual scores, the Heart Team's and the specialists' scores were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

 The examiners evaluated 154 coronary territories, of which 85 (55.2%) were protected. The Heart Team's accuracy for predicting the angiographic success of the surgery was 74.9%, almost equal to that of the surgeons alone (73.2%). Only the interventional cardiologist predicted left anterior descending territory grafting success. The Heart Team had good specificity and reasonable sensitivity, and the surgeons had high sensitivity and low specificity in predicting angiographic success.

CONCLUSION

 The multispecialty Heart Team achieved good accuracy in predicting the angiographic coronary artery bypass graft success in patients with diffuse CAD, with a high specificity and reasonable sensitivity.

The Impact of Race on Outcomes of Revascularization for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Racial disparities exist between Black and White patients with coronary artery disease with regard to access to revascularization, preprocedural comorbidities, and postprocedural outcomes. This study investigated the differences in the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) and long-term outcomes between Black and White patients.

METHODS

This was a propensity-matched retrospective analysis that utilized pooled institutional data from a large, multihospital health care system. It included Black and White patients who underwent coronary revascularization for MVCAD between 2011 and 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 6005 patients were included (5689 White and 316 Black). In the unmatched cohort, Black patients had a higher incidence of preexisting comorbidities such as diabetes, dialysis dependence, peripheral arterial disease, heart failure, and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) more frequently. Five-year overall survival was similar, but Black patients experienced higher rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and repeat revascularization. Propensity matching resulted in a sample of 926 (312 Black, 614 White) patients that were well matched. In the matched analysis, Black patients underwent PCI more frequently and a had higher rate of stoke. Five-year survival, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and repeat revascularization rates were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Black patients with MVCAD have a higher comorbidity burden and undergo PCI at higher rates. After adjusting for baseline differences, Black patients still had higher rates of PCI utilization and long-term stroke. It is possible that a significant portion of racial disparities in MVCAD are driven by differences in baseline risk; however, there is evidence of possible racial bias with regard to revascularization strategies.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

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

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

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.

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.

Examining Coronary Revascularization Practice Patterns for Diabetics: Perceived Barriers, Facilitators, and Implications for Knowledge Translation

BACKGROUND

The FREEDOM trial provided robust evidence that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was superior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary revascularization in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD). The present study examined practice pattern changes and perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing FREEDOM trial evidence in British Columbia (BC).

METHODS

Using a population-based database of cardiac procedures in BC, PCI:CABG ratios from 2007-2014 were compared before and after publication of the FREEDOM trial in the 4 tertiary cardiac centres that provided both CABG and PCI. Surveys of barriers and facilitators to implementation of evidence in practice were completed by 57 health care providers (HCPs) attending educational outreach sessions conducted in 2016-17 at 5 tertiary cardiac centres in BC.

RESULTS

The overall PCI:CABG ratio declined from 1.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48-1.70, range 1.16-1.86) before publication to 0.88 (95% CI 0.75-1.01, range 0.56-0.82) after publication (P < 0.01). This decline from before to after publication was significant in 3 centres, but not in the fourth centre (from 1.62 to 1.49; P = 0.61). Barriers were identified at the levels of evidence (applicability, credibility), HCP (awareness/knowledge, practice behaviours), patient (knowledge/misconceptions, preferences), and systems (siloing of care, financial disincentives, resource limitations, geography). Facilitators were additional studies/guidelines, education/dissemination, shared decision making, a heart team approach, changes to remuneration models, and increased resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Following publication of the FREEDOM trial, the proportion of patients with DM and MV-CAD undergoing CABG increased in BC; however, practice patterns varied across cardiac centres. HCPs attributed these practice variations to multilevel barriers and facilitators. Future knowledge translation strategies should be multifaceted and tailored to identified determinants.

Revascularization following non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in multivessel coronary disease

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization approach for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) is controversial. We sought to investigate outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).

METHODS

Adult patients with MVCAD and NSTEMI undergoing either CABG or PCI at a single institution between 2011 and 2018 were included. Multivariable analysis was utilized to determine independent predictors of death, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and readmissions. A subanalysis examined patients undergoing complete revascularization.

RESULTS

A total of 2001 patients were included, of whom 1480 (74.0%) underwent CABG. CABG was associated with a lower risk-adjusted hazard for death (hazard ratio, 0.59, P < .001) and with improved survival at 1 year (92.0 vs 81.8%, P < .001) and 5 years (80.7 vs 63.3%, P < .001). Additionally, freedom from MACCE (P < .001) was greater in the CABG group and cumulative readmission, rates of MI, and rates of repeat revascularization were lower with CABG (each P < .001). Among patients undergoing complete revascularization, overall survival (1 year: 92.7 vs 83.9%, P = .010; 5 years: 81.1 vs 69.4%, P < .001) and freedom from MACCE (1 year: 92.3 vs 75.2%, P < .001; 5 years: 81.7 vs 61.4%, P < .001) remained higher for the CABG group; cumulative incidence of readmission was also decreased in those undergoing CABG (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world analysis of patients with MVCAD presenting with NSTEMI, revascularization with CABG resulted in improved survival with lower rates of MACCE and readmission as compared to PCI, which persisted when accounting for complete revascularization.

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

Background The 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 Results One 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. Conclusions Integrating 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.

Coronary Bypass Versus Percutaneous Revascularization in Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

This study focused on contemporary outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD).

METHODS

This was a propensity-matched retrospective, observational analysis. Patients with MVCAD who underwent CABG or PCI between 2010 and 2018 and for whom data were available through the National Cardiovascular Data Registry or The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database were included. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included freedom from inpatient readmission and freedom from repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

Of the initial 6,163 patients with MVCAD, the propensity-matched cohort included 844 in each group. The estimated 1-year mortality was 11.5% and 7.2% (p < 0.001) in the PCI and CABG groups, respectively, with an overall hazard ratio for mortality of PCI versus CABG of 1.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29 to 2.10; p < 0.001). The overall hazard ratio for readmission for PCI versus CABG was 1.42 (95% CI, 1.23 to 1.64; p < 0.001). The overall hazard ratio for repeat revascularization for PCI versus CABG was 4.06 (95% CI, 2.39 to 6.91; p < 0.001). Overall major adverse cardiovascular events and individual outcomes of mortality, readmission, and repeat revascularization all favored CABG across virtually all major clinical subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

This contemporary propensity-matched analysis of patients undergoing coronary revascularization for MVCAD demonstrates a significant mortality benefit with CABG over PCI, and this benefit is consistent across virtually all major patient subgroups. Futures studies are needed reflecting routine practice to assess how best to approach shared decision making and informed consent when it comes to revascularization decisions in any patient with MVCAD.