Heart Team decision making and long-term outcomes for 1000 consecutive cases of coronary artery disease. (7th August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Domingues, Carina T; Milojevic, Milan; Thuijs, Daniel J F M; van Mieghem, Nicolas M; Daemen, Joost; van Domburg, Ron T; Kappetein, A Pieter; Head, Stuart J
• Is Part Of: Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery. Volume 28:Number 2(2019)
• Page Start: 206
• Page End: 213
• Publication Date: 2018-08-07
• Subjects: Coronary artery bypass grafting -- Percutaneous coronary intervention -- Guidelines -- Heart Team -- Decision making -- Delay -- Survival; Chest -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.1
• DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivy237
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1569-9293

Abstract

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: The Heart Team has been recommended as standard care for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, little is known about the real benefits, potential treatment delays and late outcomes of this approach. Our goal was to determine the safety and feasibility of multidisciplinary Heart Team decision making for patients with CAD. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 1000 consecutive cases discussed by the Heart Team between November 2010 and January 2012. We assessed (i) time intervals between different care steps involving the Heart Team; (ii) the distribution of patients according to the complexity of their CAD; and (iii) the 5-year survival as estimated from Kaplan–Meier curves. RESULTS: Of 1000 case discussions, 40 were repeat cases, resulting in 960 unique cases. The mean age was 65 years, 73% were men, and 29% had diabetes. Native vessel disease was present in 86.4%, of which 69% had simple 1-vessel disease (1VD) or 2-vessel disease (2VD), and 31% had complex left main (LM) or 3-vessel disease (3VD). The time interval between referral by a community hospital and final treatment was less than 6 weeks for 90% of cases. Treatment decisions were delayed in 35% of cases due to a need for additional diagnostic information. For simple 1- or 2VD with or without proximal left anterior descending artery involvement, treatment was medical therapy in 6% and 12%, respectively; percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 88% and 85%, respectively; and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 6% and 3%, respectively. For 3VD disease, treatment was equally split between CABG and PCI (46% for both). PCI was preferred for isolated LM or LM with 1VD (81% vs CABG 16%), whereas CABG was preferred in LM with 2- or 3VD (71% vs PCI 19%). The 5-year mortality rate was 16% for 1- or 2VD, 17% for 3VD, 3% for isolated LM or with 1VD and 27% for LM with 2- or 3VD. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-centre analysis, the Heart Team approach was feasible, with decision making and treatment by the Heart Team following within a short time after referral. However, the timing of treatment could be further optimized if adequate information and imaging were available at the time of the Heart Team meeting. The final treatment recommendation by the Heart Team was largely in accordance with clinical guidelines.