Cardiovascular Sciences Department, Agostino Gemelli Foundation Polyclinic IRCCS.
Catholic University of The Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2023 Dec 1;24(12):906-913. doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000001511. Epub 2023 Aug 2.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
尽管普遍认为心脏团队方法对心脏病患者有益,但关于其对决策过程实际影响的数据很少。本研究旨在确定心脏团队对患者进行系统讨论的一致性水平随时间的演变,并评估对心脏团队建议的依从性以及心脏团队对患者临床结果的影响。
2015 年至 2016 年,一位经验丰富的心脏外科医生和一位心脏病专家独立审查了一系列 100 例患者的临床数据(第 1 组,G1),并随后为每位患者推荐治疗(手术、经皮、杂交或药物治疗)或进一步的诊断检查。第二天,由医院心脏团队讨论每个病例。记录心脏团队的建议、患者随后接受的治疗以及住院期间的结果。在 2017 年,对第 2 组(G2)和 2018 年的第 3 组(G3)进行了相同的研究程序,每组包括 100 例患者。
在 G1 中,心脏外科医生、心脏病专家和心脏团队在治疗选择上完全一致的比例为 43%,在 G2 和 G3 中分别为 70%和 68%(G1 与 G2:P <0.001,G1 与 G3:P = 0.01,G2 与 G3:P = 0.30)。风险较高的患者和主动脉瓣狭窄患者的一致性较低。心脏团队的决策在 95%的情况下得到实施,30 天死亡率为 0.67%。
在最初的经验中,心脏外科医生、心脏病专家和心脏团队在治疗选择上的一致性似乎较低。随后,它似乎随着时间的推移而稳步增加,直到达到一个稳定结果的平台。基于指南和多学科经验的心脏团队临床病例讨论是确定最佳患者治疗途径的关键步骤,可能会改善决策过程和临床结果。