Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Maastricht, Netherlands.
Cardiovascular Research Institute (CARIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 Jul 30;60(2):263-273. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab065.
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.
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.
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.
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.
尽管美国和欧洲指南均将“心脏团队方法”推荐为 I 类推荐,但仍缺乏支持证据。因此,我们旨在提供接受普通心脏团队和专门的二尖瓣心脏团队评估的二尖瓣疾病患者的比较生存数据。
在这项回顾性队列研究中,纳入了由普通心脏团队(2009-2014 年)和专门的二尖瓣心脏团队(2014-2018 年)评估的二尖瓣疾病患者。前瞻性记录心脏团队电子表格中的决策。终点是从心脏团队决策开始的总体生存率。
共纳入 1145 例患者,其中 641 例(56%)由专门的心脏团队讨论,504 例(44%)由普通心脏团队讨论。在 5 年时,专门心脏团队组的生存概率为 0.74[95%置信区间(CI)0.68-0.79],而普通心脏团队组为 0.70(95%CI 0.66-0.74,P=0.040)。为调整 EuroSCORE II、治疗组(手术、经导管和非介入)、二尖瓣病变(退行性、功能性、风湿性和其他)以及专门心脏团队组患者的其他 13 项基线特征后,死亡率的调整后的相对风险降低了 29%[风险比(HR)0.71,95%CI 0.54-0.95;P=0.019]。接受心脏团队建议的患者的调整后死亡率相对风险降低了 61%(HR 0.39,95%CI 0.25-0.62;P<0.001),而接受普通心脏团队建议的患者的调整后死亡率相对风险降低了 43%(HR 0.57,95%CI 0.37-0.87;P=0.010)。与未接受心脏团队建议的患者相比。
在这项回顾性队列研究中,基于专门的心脏团队决策治疗二尖瓣疾病的患者,无论接受何种治疗、二尖瓣病变和基线特征如何,生存率均显著提高。