Search

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

BACKGROUND: The increasing use of biological substitutes for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), has led to the development of new bioprostheses with improved hemodynamics and expected durability.METHODS: In this observational retrospective two-center cohort study, two innovative bioprostheses, INSPIRIS Resilia and AVALUS were analyzed. We analyzed early and 2.4-year follow-up results in terms of safety, clinical outcome and hemodynamic performance. RESULTS: From November 2017 to February 2021, 148 patients underwent AVR with INSPIRIS Resilia (N.=74) or AVALUS (N.=74) bio-prosthesis. The 30-day and mid-term mortality was comparable (1% vs. 3%, P=0.1 and 7% vs. 4%, P=0.4, respectively). Valve-related mortality was observed in one AVALUS patient. Three (4%) patients of the AVALUS group developed prosthetic endocarditis and two of them died after reoperation. No other cases of prosthetic endocarditis were observed. No cases of structural valve degeneration or significant paravalvular leak were detected at follow-up. Median follow-up peak pressure gradient was 21 vs. 23 mmHg (P=0.4) and the mean pressure gradient was 12 vs. 13 mmHg (P=0.9) for Inspiris and AVALUS, respectively. The effective orifice area (EOA) and indexed EOA were 1.5 cm2 vs. 1.4 cm2 (P=0.4) and 0.8 vs. 0.7 cm2/m2 (P=0.5), respectively. Indexed left ventricular mass regression was-33 vs.-52 g/m2 for the Inspiris and AVALUS groups, respectively, (R2-adjusted =0.14; P<0.01).CONCLUSIONS: INSPIRIS Resilia and AVALUS bioprostheses were reliable with comparable results in safety, clinical outcome and hemo-dynamic performance. After statistical adjustment, AVALUS was associated with better left ventricular mass reduction. Long-term follow-up would provide definitive comparative results.