Abstract
Guidelines recommend decision- making using the heart team (HT) in complex patients considered for myocardial revascularisation, but there are little data on how this approach works in practice. We data-mined our electronic HT database and selected patients in whom the clinical question referred to revascularisation, and documented HT recommendations and their implementation. We identified 154 patients (117 male), mean age 68.9 ± 11.4 years, discussed between February 2019 and December 2020. The clinical questions were coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (141 cases, 91%), and medical treatment versus revascularisation by PCI (eight cases, 6%) or by CABG (five cases, 3%). HT recommended CABG in 55 cases (35%), PCI in 43 (28%), medical treatment in 15 (10%), and equipoise in seven (5%) and further investigations in 34 (22%): non-invasive imaging for ischaemia in 11 (32%), invasive coronary physiology studies in eight (24%), further clinical assessment in seven (20%), structural imaging for five (15%), invasive coronary angiography in two (6%), and an electrophysiology opinion in one case (3%). Decisions were implemented in 135 cases (89%). The average time between the HT and the implementation of its decision was 80.5 ± 129.3 days. There were 17 deaths: 10 cardiac, six non- cardiac and one of unknown cause. Patients who survived were younger (68.6 ± 11.3 years) than those who died (73.8 ± 10.0 years, p = 0.03). In conclusion, almost 90% of the decisions of the HT on myocardial revascularisation are implemented, while ischaemia testing is the main investigation required for decision- making. Recent data on the futility of such an approach have not yet permeated clinical practice.