2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes

Cardiovascular multidisciplinary heart teams (MDHTs) have evolved significantly over the past decade. These teams play a central role in the treatment of a wide array of cardiovascular diseases affecting interventional cardiology, cardiac surgery, interventional imaging, advanced heart failure, adult congenital heart disease, cardio-oncology, and cardio-obstetrics. To meet the specific needs of both patients and heart programs, the composition and function of cardiovascular MDHTs have had to adapt and evolve. Although lessons have been learned from multidisciplinary cancer care, best practices for the operation of cardiovascular MDHTs have yet to be defined, and the evidence base supporting their effectiveness is limited. This expert panel review discusses the history and evolution of cardiovascular MDHTs, their composition and role in treating patients across a broad spectrum of disciplines, basic tenets for successful operation, and the future challenges facing them. 

The Multidisciplinary Heart Team in Cardiovascular Medicine

Whether one wants to or not, interactions between the heart and the kidneys exist and manifest nevertheless. Both from theoretical and clinical perspectives, it seems the need for a subspecialty of cardionephrology seems justified. Our editorial is a cardiologist perspective on the article by Diez and Ortiz published in Clinical Kidney Journal related to the 'need for a cardionephrology subspecialty'. We analysed the historical similarities of the emergence of already ingrained clinical fields with the current needs in the cardionephrology sector. We motivated our approach based on novel cardiovascular diagnostic and therapeutic developments and significant pathophysiological differences from a cardiological perspective, accounting for the foundation of a novel sustainable medical field. One of the sensitive issues we also addressed was the operationality and applicability of the principles. We answered with some examples from high-risk debatable contexts the question of where a cardionephrologist should be integrated. Clarifying the operationality aspects would be a positive shift towards improving guidelines adherence in managing complex patients. In conclusion, we underline that the necessity of a cardionephrologist must be addressed from an operational and scientific perspective, with the ultimate goal of reducing mortality and complications in cardiorenal patients.

/pdf/cardionephrology-from-the-point-of-view-of-the-cardiologist-211lm2lf5x.pdf

Cardionephrology from the point of view of the cardiologist: no more agree to disagree-getting to 'yes' for every patient.

Consultation by a Heart Team (HT) is a class I recommendation by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with complex cardiac disease. Despite the class I recommendation, there is a paucity of data to support the role of an HT with only level C quality of evidence. This study was performed to follow patients who were referred for HT consultation and long-term outcomes in relation to whether the recommendation of the HT was followed or not. We performed a prospective analysis of our cohort of patients who underwent consultation by the HT. A total of 342 cases have been followed. Patient characteristics, referring physicians' favored treatment, and key outcomes were followed. A total of 336 patients were reviewed; 70.4% were male patients with a median age of 66.3 years and an average EuroSCORE II score of 7.2%. A total of 79.9% of the discussions resulted in a unanimous decision. The recommendations made by the HT differed from those documented by the referring physician in 54% of cases. In conclusion, recommendations made by the HT were followed in 269 cases (83.8%). There was a significant reduction in cardiac death (6.3% vs 15.3%, p = 0.042), composite cardiac outcome (23.4% vs 51.9%, p ≤0.001), and hospital admissions (10.4% vs 36.5%, p ≤0.001) when recommendations were followed. There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups when looking at noncardiac death, stroke, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, dialysis, or an emergency room visit. 

Does a Heart Team Improve Clinical Outcomes?

Evolution of Testing for Allograft Rejection After Orthotopic Heart Transplantation Without the Evolution of Guidelines and a Proposal for the Multidisciplinary Health-Team Approach.

Importance Although the heart team approach is recommended in revascularization guidelines, the frequency with which heart team decisions differ from those of the original treating interventional cardiologist is unknown. Objective To examine the difference in decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cross-sectional study, 245 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were recruited from 1 high-volume tertiary care referral center (185 patients were enrolled through a screening process, and 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled from the center’s database). A total of 237 patients were included in the final virtual heart team analysis. Treatment decisions (which comprised coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy) were made by the original treating interventional cardiologists between March 15, 2012, and October 20, 2014. These decisions were then compared with pooled-majority treatment decisions made by 8 blinded heart teams using structured online case presentations between October 1, 2017, and October 15, 2018. The randomized members of the heart teams comprised experts from 3 domains, with each team containing 1 noninvasive cardiologist, 1 interventional cardiologist, and 1 cardiovascular surgeon. Cases in which all 3 of the heart team members disagreed and cases in which procedural discordance occurred (eg, 2 members chose coronary artery bypass grafting and 1 member chose percutaneous coronary intervention) were discussed in a face-to-face heart team review in October 2018 to obtain pooled-majority decisions. Data were analyzed from May 6, 2019, to April 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures The Cohen κ coefficient between the treatment recommendation from the heart team and the treatment recommendation from the original treating interventional cardiologist. Results Among 234 of 237 patients (98.7%) in the analysis for whom complete data were available, the mean (SD) age was 67.8 (10.9) years; 176 patients (75.2%) were male, and 191 patients (81.4%) had stenosis in 3 epicardial coronary vessels. A total of 71 differences (30.3%; 95% CI, 24.5%-36.7%) in treatment decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist occurred, with a Cohen κ of 0.478 (95% CI, 0.336-0.540;P = .006). The heart team decision was more frequently unanimous when it was concordant with the decision of the original treating interventional cardiologist (109 of 163 cases [66.9%]) compared with when it was discordant (28 of 71 cases [39.4%];P  Conclusions and Relevance The heart team’s recommended treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease differed from that of the original treating interventional cardiologist in up to 30% of cases. This subset of cases was associated with a lower frequency of unanimous decisions within the heart team and less concordance between the interventional cardiologists; discordance was more frequent when percutaneous coronary intervention or medication therapy were considered. Further research is needed to evaluate whether heart team decisions are associated with improvements in outcomes and, if so, how to identify patients for whom the heart team approach would be beneficial.

/pdf/comparison-of-heart-team-vs-interventional-cardiologist-4dcr8kp5s8.pdf

Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.

TCT-145 RADIATION PROTECT: A randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of a novel pelvic lead shield and a novel, non-lead surgical cap to reduce operator radiation exposure during coronary angiography or intervention

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Michael B. Tsang

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.

TCT-145 RADIATION PROTECT: A randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of a novel pelvic lead shield and a novel, non-lead surgical cap to reduce operator radiation exposure during coronary angiography or intervention