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

Defining centres of expertise for minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and volume-outcome meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) is increasingly performed, but outcomes such as repair rate, mortality and survival likely depend on expertise. Still, the definition of a high-volume centre varies in the literature and lacks an evidence-based substantiation. Consequently, this study aims to determine the volume-outcome relation in MIMVS in conjunction with a volume threshold, in order to define 'high-volume centres', applying a novel statistical concept.

METHODS

The study was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42022376293, registered 26 November 2022). A systematic search was applied to three databases, including consecutive patients undergoing MIMVS. Studies describing patients undergoing transcatheter procedures were excluded. Restricted cubic spline analyses were applied and the elbow method was used to retrieve the threshold volume. Long-term outcomes were analysed using reconstructed Kaplan-Meier curves and a novel statistical concept to assess the volume-outcome relation for time-to-event outcomes was applied. The primary outcome was early mortality, secondary outcomes were repair rate, stroke, and long-term survival, freedom from reoperation, and freedom from more than moderate mitral regurgitation. Leave-one-out analyses were performed for sensitivity purposes.

RESULTS

Data from 68 unique centres were included (n=23 495 patients). Early mortality was 1.3% (95% CI 1.1% to 1.6%), without a statistically significant non-linear relation for this endpoint, nor for stroke. There was a statistically significant volume-outcome relation for mitral valve repair rate (p=0.018). Based on the repair rate, the threshold to define a high-volume centre was 60 cases/year (number needed to treat to prevent a replacement ≤7). A significant volume-outcome relation was observed for long-term outcomes as well, with a threshold of 53 and 54 cases/year for long-term survival and freedom from reoperation, respectively. These results were robust across the sensitivity analyses for the various endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

The threshold to define a high-volume centre ranges between 53 and 60 cases/year based on repair rate, long-term survival and freedom-from reoperation. These findings have the potential to facilitate centralisation of MIMVS.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022376293.

The current state of the multidisciplinary heart team approach: a systematic review

The heart team (HT) approach, recommended for managing cardiovascular diseases, emphasizes multidisciplinary collaboration. Despite its potential benefits, evidence on its effectiveness and implementation is varied and sparse. This review assesses the HT approach's impact on patient outcomes and care delivery in cardiovascular care. A systematic review was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar up to July 2023, focusing on studies that implemented an HT approach in coronary and heart valve disease management. Exclusion criteria included non-human studies, case reports and studies not focusing on HT outcomes. From 6270 identified articles, 20 met the inclusion criteria. These studies demonstrated significant variability in HT composition and organization, coupled with a lack of standardized metrics for evaluating clinical outcomes and the impact of the HT. Significant variability was observed in HT composition, with 13 of the 20 studies did not utilize structured templates, those that did demonstrated more consistent decision-making. In mitral valve interventions, HTs were linked to reduced in-hospital mortality and improved long-term survival (5-year survival probability of 0.74 vs 0.70, P = 0.04). In aortic valve interventions, 80% of patients underwent tailored valve procedures following HT evaluation. The HT approach in cardiovascular care demonstrates improved patient outcomes, particularly in specialized interventions for mitral and aortic valve diseases and coronary artery disease management. Despite these positive findings, the variability in HT implementation and the need for standardized outcome metrics call for further advances to optimize this collaborative care model.

Outcomes of Mitral Valve Regurgitation Management after Expert Multidisciplinary Valve Team Evaluation

Background/Objectives: Mitral regurgitation (MR) affects millions worldwide, necessitating timely intervention. There are significant clinical challenges in the conservative management of MR, leaving a knowledge gap regarding the impact of multidisciplinary decision-making on treatment outcomes. This study aimed to provide insights into the impact of multidisciplinary decision-making on the survival outcomes of MR patients, focusing on conservative approaches. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzes 1365 patients evaluated by an expert multidisciplinary heart team (MDT) in a single center from 2015 to 2022. Treatments included surgery, catheter-based interventions, and conservative management. Propensity matching was utilized to compare surgery and conservative approaches. Results: Surgical intervention was associated with superior long-term survival outcomes compared to conservative and catheter-based treatments, particularly for degenerative MR (DMR). Survival rates of patients deemed by the MDT to have non-severe DMR were comparable to surgical patients (HR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.37-3.12, p = 0.90). However, non-severe functional MR (FMR) patients trended towards elevated mortality risk (HR 1.77, 95% CI: 0.94-3.31, p = 0.07). Pharmacological treatment for DMR was associated with significantly higher mortality compared to surgery (HR 8.0, 95% CI: 1.78-36.03, p = 0.001). Functional MR patients treated pharmacologically exhibited a non-significantly higher mortality risk compared to surgical intervention (HR 1.93, 95% CI: 0.77-4.77, p = 0.20). Conclusions: Survival analysis revealed significant benefits for surgical intervention, contrasting with elevated mortality risks associated with conservative management. "Watchful waiting" may be appropriate for non-severe DMR, while FMR may require closer monitoring. Further research is needed to assess the impact of regular follow-up or delayed surgery on survival rates, as pharmacological therapy has limited long-term efficacy for DMR.

Incidence of Underreferral to Multidisciplinary Evaluation in Severe Primary Mitral Regurgitation

Background

Severe primary mitral regurgitation (MR) warrants multidisciplinary evaluation involving cardiac surgeons and structural interventional cardiologists. The incidence and potential impact on outcomes of missed evaluation remain unknown.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with new diagnoses of severe primary MR from an echocardiography database within a large health care network. Of 37,749 unique patients with echocardiograms, 126 had severe primary MR. We compared the 2-year survival of patients who did and did not undergo multidisciplinary evaluation. Propensity score matching was performed on the basis of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality for mitral repair.

Results

Of 126 patients with severe primary MR (median age, 79 years [interquartile range, 68-89 years]; 60% women), 37 (29%) underwent multidisciplinary evaluation. Evaluated patients were younger (71 [58-79] years vs 84 [73-90] years), and of those, 26 (70%) underwent operations within 37 days of evaluation. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality median was 1% (1%-5%) and 4% (1%-10%) for evaluated and unevaluated patients, respectively. Of the 74 patients matched, the mortality rate was lower in evaluated patients at 90 days (11% [n = 4] vs 27% [n = 10]; P = .08) and 2 years (16% [n = 6] vs 35% [n = 13]; P = .06).

Conclusions

The multidisciplinary referral rate for newly identified severe primary MR was low at 29%, with underreferral of low-risk, potentially operative candidates. The observed improved survival with multidisciplinary evaluation calls for efforts to maximize referral of this group of patients.

Mitral valvular surgery outcomes in a centre with a dedicated mitral multi-disciplinary team

International guidelines recommend 'heart teams' as the preferred method for decision-making. Heart team processes, mandatory attendees and investigations vary significantly between hospitals. We assessed outcomes following mitral valvular surgery in a tertiary referral centre with a dedicated mitral multi-disciplinary team (MDT). This was a single-centre retrospective review of prospectively collected data within the 'mitral database' of mitral valvular disease patients. The 'mitral MDT' meeting involved pre-operative imaging and clinical data review, including mandatory transoesophageal echocardiography; recommendation for planned procedure, as well as an appropriate surgeon; and review of echocardiography images and clinical outcomes after surgery had been performed. Between 2016 and 2020, 395 patients with mitral valvular disease were discussed at MDT. Of these, 310 patients underwent surgery. During the same time interval, 75 patients had surgery without MDT discussion: 84% of patients not discussed were urgent or emergent procedures and, in these, the most common pathology was degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR, 46%) followed by infective endocarditis (30%). Of those discussed at MDT the pathology was: DMR 65%; mitral stenosis 14%; functional mitral regurgitation (MR) 5%; rheumatic MR 4%; endocarditis 4%; ischaemic MR 4%; and other pathologies 4%. For patients with DMR having elective surgery, the repair rate was 93% with mortality 2% and median (IQR) length of stay 5 (4-6) days. Postoperative transthoracic echocardiography demonstrated 99% of elective DMR patients had ≤2+ MR and <1% severe (3+) MR. In conclusion, a dedicated 'mitral MDT' can enhance the safe delivery of care with consistently high repair rates for DMR patients with excellent outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Procedure versus Conventional Redo Sternotomy for Mitral Valve Surgery in Patients with Previous Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The heightened morbidity and mortality associated with repeat cardiac surgery are well documented. Redo median sternotomy (MS) and minimally invasive valve surgery are options for patients with prior cardiac surgery who require mitral valve surgery (MVS). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of redo MS and minimally invasive MVS (MIMVS) in this population.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus for studies comparing outcomes of redo MS and MIMVS for MVS. To calculate risk ratios (RRs) for binary outcomes and weighted mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, we employed a random-effects model.

Results

We included 12 retrospective observational studies, comprising 4157 participants (675 for MIMVS; 3482 for redo MS). Reductions in mortality (RR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.80), length of hospital stay (MD, -4.23; 95% CI, -5.77 to -2.68), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD, -2.02; 95% CI, -3.17 to -0.88), and new-onset acute kidney injury (AKI) risk (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.61) were statistically significant and favored MIMVS (p<0.05). No significant differences were observed in aortic cross-clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, or risk of perioperative stroke, new-onset atrial fibrillation, surgical site infection, or reoperation for bleeding (p>0.05).

Conclusion

The current literature, which primarily consists of retrospective comparisons, underscores certain benefits of MIMVS over redo MS. These include decreased mortality, shorter hospital and ICU stays, and reduced AKI risk. Given the lack of high-quality evidence, prospective randomized control trials with adequate power are necessary to investigate long-term outcomes.

An Individualized Approach of Multidisciplinary Heart Team for Myocardial Revascularization and Valvular Heart Disease—State of Art

The multidisciplinary Heart Team (HT) remains the standard of care for highly-burdened patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and valvular heart disease (VHD) and is widely adopted in the medical community and supported by European and American guidelines. An approach of highly-experienced specialists, taking into account numerous clinical factors, risk assessment, long-term prognosis and patients preferences seems to be the most rational option for individuals with. Some studies suggest that HT management may positively impact adherence to current recommendations and encourage the incorporation of patient preferences through the use of shared-decision making. Evidence from randomized-controlled trials are scarce and we still have to satisfy with observational studies. Furthermore, we still do not know how HT should cooperate, what goals are desired and most importantly, how HT decisions affect long-term outcomes and patient’s satisfaction. This review aimed to comprehensively discuss the available evidence establishing the role of HT for providing optimal care for patients with CAD and VHD. We believe that the need for research to recognize the HT definition and range of its functioning is an important issue for further exploration. Improved techniques of interventional cardiology, minimally-invasive surgeries and new drugs determine future perspectives of HT conceptualization, but also add new issues to the complexity of HT cooperation. Regardless of which direction HT has evolved, its concept should be continued and refined to improve healthcare standards.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Improving the heart team: An interdisciplinary team and integrated practice unit

Heart Team emerged as an important tool in the cardiovascular care, improving the efficiency of decision-making process. In addition to the benefits in patient care, it symbolizes a new culture and mindset. However, beyond the clinical condition, in low/middle-income countries other concerns arise regarding patient's background and these demands are, usually, as challenging as the medical treatment. New models have been proposed face these demands and to assure a holistic care by Integrated Practice Units. Optimization and reorganization of already existing resources and promotion of interdisciplinary and holistic care may be an effective manner to improve outcomes despite socioeconomic barriers.

Effect of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery compared to sternotomy on short- and long-term outcomes: a retrospective multicentre interventional cohort study based on Netherlands Heart Registration

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) has been performed increasingly for the past 2 decades; however, large comparative studies on short- and long-term outcomes have been lacking. This study aims to compare short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing MIMVS versus median sternotomy (MST) based on real-world data, extracted from the Netherlands Heart Registration.

METHODS

Patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, with or without tricuspid valve, atrial septal closure and/or rhythm surgery between 2013 and 2018 were included. Primary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality and long-term survival. Propensity score matching analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In total, 2501 patients were included, 1776 were operated through MST and 725 using an MIMVS approach. After propensity matching, no significant differences in baseline characteristics persisted. There were no between-group differences in 30-day mortality (1.1% vs 0.7%, P = 0.58), 1-year mortality (2.6% vs 2.1%, P = 0.60) or perioperative stroke rate (1.1% vs 0.6%, P = 0.25) between MST and MIMVS, respectively. An increased rate of postoperative arrhythmia was observed in the MST group (31.3% vs 22.4%, P < 0.001). A higher repair rate was found in the MST group (80.9% vs 76.3%, P = 0.04). No difference in 5-year survival was found between the matched groups (95.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.49). Freedom from mitral reintervention was 97.9% for MST and 96.8% in the MIMVS group (P = 0.01), without a difference in reintervention-free survival (P = 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

The MIMVS approach is as safe as the sternotomy approach for the surgical treatment of mitral valve disease. However, it comes at a cost of a reduced repair rate and more reinterventions in the long term, in the real-world.

Effect of a dedicated mitral heart team compared to a general heart team on survival: a retrospective, comparative, non-randomized interventional cohort study based on prospectively registered data

 

OBJECTIVES

Although in both the US and European guidelines the 'heart team approach' is a class I recommendation, supporting evidence is still lacking. Therefore, we sought to provide comparative survival data of patients with mitral valve disease referred to the general and the dedicated heart team.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort, patients evaluated for mitral valve disease by a general heart team (2009-2014) and a dedicated mitral valve heart team (2014-2018) were included. Decision-making was recorded prospectively in heart team electronic forms. The end point was overall survival from decision of the heart team.

RESULTS

In total, 1145 patients were included of whom 641 (56%) were discussed by dedicated heart team and 504 (44%) by general heart team. At 5 years, survival probability was 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.79] for the dedicated heart team group compared to 0.70 (95% CI 0.66-0.74, P = 0.040) for the general heart team. Relative risk of mortality adjusted for EuroSCORE II, treatment groups (surgical, transcatheter and non-intervention), mitral valve pathology (degenerative, functional, rheumatic and others) and 13 other baseline characteristics for patients in the dedicated heart team was 29% lower [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.95; P = 0.019] than for the general heart team. The adjusted relative risk of mortality was 61% lower for patients following the advice of the heart team (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.62; P < 0.001) and 43% lower for patients following the advice of the general heart team (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.87; P = 0.010) compared to those who did not follow the advice of the heart team.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective cohort, patients treated for mitral valve disease based on a dedicated heart team decision have significantly higher survival independent of the allocated treatment, mitral valve pathology and baseline characteristics.

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic safety analysis

Objective

Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly adopted as an alternative to conventional sternotomy for mitral valve pathology in many centres worldwide. A systematic safety analysis based on a comprehensive list of pre-specified 30-day complications defined by the Mitral Valve Academic Consortium (MVARC) criteria is lacking. The aim of the current study was to systematically analyse the safety of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery in our centre based on the MVARC definitions.

Methods

All consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through right mini-thoracotomy in our institution within 10 years were studied retrospectively. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day major complications based on MVARC definitions.

Results

745 patients underwent minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (507 repair, 238 replacement), with a mean age of 62.9±12.3 years. The repair was successful in 95.8%. Overall 30-day mortality was 1.2% and stroke rate 0.3%. Freedom from any 30-day major complications was 87.2%, and independent predictors were left ventricular ejection fraction <50% (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.02 to 3.02) and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m² (OR 1.98; 95% CI 1.17 to 3.26).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is a safe technique and is associated with low 30-day mortality and stroke rate.

Heart team approach in treatment of mitral regurgitation: patient selection and outcome

OBJECTIVE

A multidisciplinary heart valve team is recommended for the evaluation of treatment in patients with valvular heart disease, but evidence supporting this concept is lacking. In patients with severe mitral regurgitation, we thought to analyse the patient selection process by the heart team for different treatment options and the outcome after treatment.

METHODS

In this single-centre cohort study, all patients treated for mitral regurgitation between July 2013 and September 2018 were included. Primary end points during follow-up were all-cause mortality and a combined end point, consisting of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular rehospitalisation and mitral valve reintervention.

RESULTS

179 patients (44.8%) were treated using Mitraclip, 185 (46.2%) by surgical repair and 36 (9.0%) by surgical replacement. The mortality risk according to EuroScore II differed significantly between treatment groups (6.6%±5.6%, 1.7%±1.5% and 3.6%±2.7% for Mitraclip, surgical repair and replacement, respectively, p<0.001). In-hospital mortality for the 3 groups were 3.4%, 1.6% and 8.3%, respectively (p=0.091). Overall, surgical repair patients had higher 4-year survival (HR 0.40 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.63), p<0.001) and fewer combined end points (HR 0.51 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.80), p<0.001) compared with surgical replacement and Mitraclip patients. However, patients undergoing Mitraclip for isolated, primary mitral regurgitation achieved very good long-term survival.

CONCLUSION

The multidisciplinary heart team assigned only low-risk patients with favourable anatomy to surgical repair, while high-risk patients underwent Mitraclip or surgical replacement. This strategy was associated with lower than expected in-hospital mortality for Mitraclip patients and high 4-year survival rates for patients undergoing surgical or percutaneous repair of isolated primary mitral regurgitation.

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.

Heart teams in the Netherlands: From teamwork to data‑driven decision-making

For all patients with cardiovascular disease requiring an intervention, this is a major life event. The heart team concept is one of the most exciting and effective team modalities to ensure cost-effective application of invasive cardiovascular care. It optimises patient selection in a complex decision-making process and identifies risk/benefit ratios of different interventions. Informed consent and patient safety should be at the centre of these decisions. To deal with increased load of medical data in the future, artificial intelligence could enable objective and effective interpretation of medical imaging and decision support. This technical support is indispensable to meet current patient and societal demands for informed consent, shared decision-making, outcome improvement and safety. The heart team should be restructured with clear leadership, accountability, and process and outcome measurement of interventions. In this way, the heart team concept in the Netherlands will be ready for the future.