TY - JOUR
T1 - The multidisciplinary Heart Team approach for patients with cardiovascular disease: a step towards personalized medicine
AU - Mazza, Andrea
AU - Iafrancesco, Mauro
AU - Bruno, Piergiorgio
AU - Chiariello, Giovanni Alfonso
AU - Trani, Carlo
AU - Burzotta, Francesco
AU - Cammertoni, Federico
AU - Pasquini, Annalisa
AU - Diana, Giovanni
AU - Rosenhek, Raphael
AU - Liuzzo, Giovanna
AU - Rabini, Alessia
AU - Flex, Andrea
AU - Raweh, Abdallah
AU - Crea, Filippo
AU - Massetti, Massimo
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - Aims: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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%. Conclusion: 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.
AB - Aims: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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%. Conclusion: 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.
KW - Cardiovascular disease
KW - heart team
KW - myocardial infarction
KW - Cardiovascular disease
KW - heart team
KW - myocardial infarction
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/248796
U2 - 10.2459/JCM.0000000000001511
DO - 10.2459/JCM.0000000000001511
M3 - Article
SN - 1558-2027
VL - 24
SP - 906
EP - 913
JO - Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine
JF - Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine
ER -