Search

Background The Heart Team approach is ascribed a Class I recommendation in contemporary guidelines for revascularization of complex coronary artery disease. However, limited data are available regarding the decision‐making and outcomes of patients based on this strategy. Methods and Results One hundred sixty‐six high‐risk coronary artery disease patients underwent Heart Team evaluation at a single institution between January 2015 and November 2018. We prospectively collected data on demographics, symptoms, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality/Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery ( STS ‐ PROM / SYNTAX ) scores, mode of revascularization, and outcomes. Mean age was 70.0 years; 122 (73.5%) patients were male. Prevalent comorbidities included diabetes mellitus (51.8%), peripheral artery disease (38.6%), atrial fibrillation (27.1%), end‐stage renal disease on dialysis (13.3%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (21.7%). Eighty‐seven (52.4%) patients had New York Heart Association III ‐ IV and 112 (67.5%) had Canadian Cardiovascular Society III ‐ IV symptomatology. Sixty‐seven (40.4%) patients had left main and 118 (71.1%) had 3‐vessel coronary artery disease. The median STS ‐ PROM was 3.6% (interquartile range 1.9, 8.0) and SYNTAX score was 26 (interquartile range 20, 34). The median number of physicians per Heart Team meeting was 6 (interquartile range 5, 8). Seventy‐nine (47.6%) and 49 (29.5%) patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. With increasing STS ‐ PROM (low, intermediate, high operative risk), coronary artery bypass graft was performed less often (47.9%, 18.5%, 15.2%) and optimal medical therapy was recommended more often (11.3%, 18.5%, 30.3%). There were no trends in recommendation for coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, or optimal medical therapy by SYNTAX score tertiles. In‐hospital and 30‐day mortality was 3.9% and 4.8%, respectively. Conclusions Integrating a multidisciplinary Heart Team into institutional practice is feasible and provides a formalized approach to evaluating complex coronary artery disease patients. The comprehensive assessment of surgical, anatomical, and other risk scores using a decision aid may guide appropriate, evidence‐based management within this team‐based construct.

A higher mortality rate for weekend myocardial infarction (MI) admissions has been reported and attributed to the lower availability of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during off-hours. However, the data are conflicting and, furthermore, inapplicable to hospitals where primary PCI is invariably performed.This study was conducted in a tertiary hospital where primary PCI is routinely performed in all patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Patients admitted during on-hours (Monday through Friday 7 am-7 pm) where compared to off-hours patients (including weekends). The primary endpoint of in-hospital mortality, cardiogenic shock and recurrent MI was examined. A second analysis that excluded STEMI transfers, in-hospital mortality and reperfusion times was examined.Between 2003 and 2007, 747 STEMI patients (46% on-hours vs. 56% off-hours) underwent primary PCI. Demographic characteristics were similar between on- and off-hours groups. However, off-hours STEMI admissions had significantly greater in-hospital mortality rates (8% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.01) and higher rates of cardiogenic shock (37% vs. 24%; p = 0.0001). Admission arrival time was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 3.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-14.38; p = 0.035). Longer door-to-balloon times (DTB) were observed during off-hours (134 vs. 109 minutes; p0.0001), even after excluding the transfer population (63 vs. 89 minutes; p0.0001).Higher rates of in-hospital mortality and cardiogenic shock may be expected in STEMI patients admitted during off-hours, even when primary PCI is performed. Longer DTB times during off-hours may partially explain our findings. Strategies to optimize reperfusion time during off-hours, including perhaps a 24/7 in-house "STEMI team" may be necessary.

There have been no studies of interventions to reduce test utilization in the coronary care unit.To determine whether a 3-part intervention in a coronary care unit could decrease utilization without affecting clinical outcomes.Practice guidelines for routine laboratory and chest radiographic testing were developed by a multidisciplinary team, using evidence-based recommendations when possible and expert opinion otherwise. These guidelines were incorporated into the computer admission orders for the coronary care unit at a large teaching hospital, and educational efforts were targeted at the house staff and nurses. Utilization during the 3-month intervention period was compared with utilization during the same 3 months in the prior year. The hospital's medical intensive care unit, which did not receive the specific intervention, provided control data.During the intervention period, there were significant reductions in utilization of all chemistry tests (from 7% to 40%). Reductions in ordering of complete blood counts, arterial blood gas tests, and chest radiographs were not statistically significant. After controlling for trends in the control intensive care unit, however, the reductions in arterial blood gas tests (P =.04) and chest radiographs (P.001) became significant. The reductions in potassium, glucose, calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus testing, but not other chemistries, remained significant. The estimated reduction in expenditures for "routine" blood tests and chest radiographs was 17% (P.001). There were no significant changes in length of stay, readmission to intensive care, hospital mortality, or ventilator days.The utilization management intervention was associated with significant reductions in test ordering without a measurable change in clinical outcomes.