Exploring Current Evidence on the Past, the Present, and the Future of the Heart Team: A Narrative Review

Burlacu, Alexandru; Covic, Adrian; Cinteza, Mircea; Lupu, Paula Madalina; Deac, Radu; Tinica, Grigore

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9241081

Cardiovascular Therapeutics

On this page

Abstract Methods Conclusions Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 9241081 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9241081

Exploring Current Evidence on the Past, the Present, and the Future of the Heart Team: A Narrative Review

Alexandru Burlacu,^1,2Adrian Covic ,^2,3,4Mircea Cinteza,^5,6Paula Madalina Lupu,²Radu Deac,⁷and Grigore Tinica^2,8

Academic Editor: Kenji Sadamatsu

Received29 Oct 2019

Accepted19 Dec 2019

Published04 Jan 2020

Abstract

Introduction. Including healthcare professionals dealing with cardiovascular diseases, Heart Team is a concept/structure designed for selecting diagnostic strategies, facilitating therapeutic decisions, and improving cardiovascular outcomes in patients with complex heart pathologies, requiring input from different subspecialties and the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach. The aim of this narrative review is to search for and to summarize current evidence regarding Heart Team and to underline the future directions for the development of this concept. Methods. We searched the electronic database of PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane CENTRAL for studies including Heart Team. Forty-eight studies were included, if reference was made to Heart Team structure and functionality. Results. We depicted the structure and the timeline of Heart Team, along with actual evidence-based recommendations from European Guidelines. We underlined the importance of quality of knowledge-sharing and decision-making inside the Team, analyzing bad decisions which did not reflect members’ true beliefs due to “uniformity pressure, closed mindedness, and illusion of invulnerability.” The observation that Guidelines’ indications regarding Heart Team carry a level C indication underlines the very future of this Team: randomized controlled trials proving solid benefits in an evidence-based world. Conclusions. Envisioned as a tool for optimizing the management of various complex cardiovascular pathologies, Heart Team should simplify and facilitate the activity in the cardiovascular ward. Finally, these facts should be translated into better cardiovascular outcomes and a lower psychological distress among Team participants. Despite all future changes, there must always be a constant part: the patient should remain at the very center of the Team.

1. Introduction: Definitions and Timeline

Composed by various healthcare professionals dealing with cardiovascular diseases, the Heart Team is a concept and a structure designed for selecting diagnostic strategies, facilitating therapeutic decisions, and improving cardiovascular outcomes in patients with complex heart pathologies [1]. The very center of Heart Team is the patient him/herself, as he/she has the last word in deciding which therapy should be performed [2].

Development of treatment strategies and options along with the proliferating amount of scientific information from various clinical trials and the need of input from different subspecialties outline the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach [3]. Moreover, studies in which revascularization techniques were underused were associated with a significantly increased mortality rate during the follow-up [4]. Therapeutical decision can be straightforward in patients with less complex coronary artery disease, but in those with complex issues/comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus (with microvascular and macrovascular complications), chronic kidney disease, advanced heart failure, and advanced age, it becomes increasingly nuanced [5].

In the early 80s, two important studies demonstrated the benefits of surgery versus medical treatment in stable coronary artery disease. Both studies used Heart Teams (including a cardiac surgeon and a clinical cardiologist) to select patients for eligibility in randomization [6, 7].

In the year 2000, the results of the EAST registry suggested that the selection of revascularization treatment after discussion with a cardiologist, cardiac surgeon, and the patient provided better outcomes (e.g., three-year survival) in comparison with randomization [8].

The introduction of SYNTAX I and II scores [9], SYNTAX functional score [10] (based on coronary flow reserve), and Clinical SYNTAX score pointed out that it is a difficult task for a professional to decide/recommend a therapy on him/her individual own [11]. Moreover, recent studies suggested that intraobserver and interobserver variability when interpreting a coronary angiogram often results in inappropriate revascularization strategies [12–14]. A Heart Team minimizes the errors and facilitates evidence-based decisions in such situations.

Since 2010, there are specific solid indications (class I recommendation) to discuss and treat complex coronary patients through a Heart Team solution [15]. Nowadays, each European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guideline has dedicated recommendations to evaluate complex situations inside a Heart Team.

The aim of this paper is to describe the timeline of the Heart Team’s structure and discuss the functionality of this team through the lens of the quality of members’ interactions. Also, we intend to summarize current evidence regarding Heart Team and to underline the future directions for the development of this concept. To note, we further evaluate and present information from all recent ESC Guidelines with respect to the Heart Team indications (with classes of recommendations and levels of evidence).

2. Methods

We searched the electronic database of PubMed, SCOPUS, and the Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane CENTRAL) from its earliest date until May 2019 for papers that evaluated Heart Team structure and functionality. The terms used for searching were “heart team,” “clinical decision team,” “multidisciplinary decision making,” “information-sharing,” “groupthink,” “coronary heart team,” and “valvular heart team.” The reference sections of the relevant articles were manually searched for additional articles (for example, we looked for psychological studies referring to the functionality of a Team from references [16]). Randomized controlled trials, observational studies, including case-control studies, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, reviews, meta-analyses were included if reference was made to the Heart Team. Case reports were excluded.

Studies were selected by two independent reviewers by screening the title and abstract. Duplicates were excluded both manually and through Reference Manager software. Of these, only 48 met the inclusion criteria. For the selected studies, we reviewed the full-text article and additional relevant publications were added after screening the reference section.

3. The Structure and Dynamics of the Heart Team

The Heart Team structure is obviously defined by its functionality and objectives.

A complex coronary disease situation requires both a cardiac surgeon and an interventional cardiologist [17]. In addition, a clinician cardiologist and a cardiac imagist are often required for gathering complete information and expertise in special cases [18, 19].

Other medical specialists can join the Team meetings depending on the complexity of the case (e.g., radiologist). An anesthesiologist can assess the surgical risk for a patient who may undergo CABG and give insight about the safety of general anaesthesia. Moreover, a nephrologist specialist could help with those situations in which dialysis is contemplated. A psychologist, physical therapist, and geriatrician could be involved in establishing a therapeutic strategy for severe heart failure patients [20]. As depression and anxiety have been found to be highly prevalent in cardiovascular patients, collaborative care and associated integrated care programs have been developed to manage mental health conditions in patients with cardiovascular disease. Such approaches to mental health assessment can be requested and included in Heart Team protocols [21].

The Heart Team not only meets for coronary heart disease, but also for complex valvular pathologies (to decide on treatment indication and how to replace the valve: surgical, hybrid, or interventional approaches) or congenital cardiac pathologies that may benefit from modern therapies (be it minimal intervention invasive, either surgical or hybrid). Likewise, the pathology of the aorta (complex aneurysms or dissection of the aorta) requires the Team discussions in order to choose the treatment modality and to manage the possible complications [22].

Residents and/or schooled research nurses could gather the necessary data to interpret, and share the prepared score assessments on a plenary screen [1]. Through this way, definition, typing, or calculation errors can be avoided by a feedback of the whole team [1]. Involvement of patients’ families and friends in the Heart Team can increase patient satisfaction [23]. Moreover, a specialized Heart Team may ask for additional testing to help determine the most appropriate treatment option for each patient.

In a 2016 survey among involved physicians, the most important characteristics of a Heart Team were as follows: “collaborative,” “multidisciplinary,” “beneficial,” “necessary,” and “positive” [24]. To note, at the question “what are the biggest barriers that prevent your Heart Team from functioning optimally?,” the professionals answered that the sense of superiority to other staff opinions, the pressure from hospital to send more patients to surgery, and the financial reimbursement for the time and resources involved could be the most important drawbacks to a real functionality.

A prospective cohort study of 3045 CABG patients treated in 16 hospitals showed that a “supportive group culture” in hospitals was significantly correlated with higher patients’ physical and mental health scores as determined by SF-36 questionnaires 6 months postsurgery [25].

The way information is made available through the Heart Team differs from unit to unit and a multidisciplinary team proforma was filled in prior to the meeting in a tertiary referral coronary/cardiac surgery unit from Wolverhampton—United Kingdom, so the important data are required to be at hand during the meeting [17], while other units prefer to manage all the documents from a dedicated electronic archive [26]. All the data are collected and put together prior to the meeting by nurses, resident physicians, or a multidisciplinary team coordinator [17].

Recent research studies on the efficiency of Heart Team gathering identified three main elements influencing decision-making: communicating up-to-date knowledge between various specialist and between doctors and patients; making time for discussions and listening all the inquires; and reaching an agreement on which revascularization strategy will be performed with patient preferences prioritized. Given the implementation and the purposes of this multidisciplinary approach, considerations of Heart Team as a form of standard medical care are being taken [27, 28].

4. Evidence-Based Heart Team

Adapted from the 2010 ESC/EACTS Guidelines [12], the first recommendations regarding Heart Team functionality are available in the 2013 ESC Guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease [29] (see Table 1). Since then, another 6 ESC Guidelines implemented Heart Team recommendations (most of them being class I indication and C level of evidence) [30–35].

The reader should be aware that most of the Guideline recommendations are level of evidence C, a level of expert consensus requiring further solid studies for reinforcing evidence.

An ESC Review dealing with the structure of the Heart Team [1] identified five directions for new studies: (a) exploring the reproducibility of the Heart Team by presenting treatment decision of specific cases to different medical groups (teams in different regions or teams with different structures); (b) evaluating intraobserver variability to treatment recommendation (comparing an initial specialist evaluation to a reassessment by the Heart Team); (c) RCTs evaluating patients’ outcomes either through a Heart Team decision or according to the original recommendations by the surgeon or cardiologist; (d) “before-and-after studies” comparing treatment decisions and outcomes before and after implementation of the Heart Team; and (e) comparison of treatment decisions and outcomes of different centres with and without Heart Team evaluation.

5. Team Interactions versus Team Outcomes

It is obvious that the main objective of Heart Team’s planning was to optimize treatment decisions and improve cardiovascular patients’ outcomes. Moreover, the management of resources was another important target of the Heart Team. However, there are attention signals that all these concepts function smoothly only in theory [16], prior biases and the manager culture in hospitals being two major drawbacks [36]. Therefore, the next step to improving Heart Team functionality and quality of decisions should be implementing effective standards which minimize errors.

Currently, there are no dedicated standards regarding the type of discussions and the ways to solve the lack of consensus [37]. Recent psychological studies revealed that knowing others’ preferences (especially leader’s decisions) degrades the quality of group final recommendations [38]. The decision-making process seems to be considered an outcome rather than a process [39].

Various research studies found that politics and medical groups yielded bad decisions which did not reflect team members’ true beliefs due to “uniformity pressure, closed mindedness, and illusion of invulnerability” [40]. One of the most important “myths” related to Heart Team functionality is that if team members have concerns regarding treatment, they will also voice them [16]. Unfortunately, lack of speaking up with ideas poses a serious bias to the final recommendation [41].

Team leaders should be opened and invite/appreciate dissent helping members to express their ideas, opinions, and concerns [42]. Also, one of the solutions to this issue is that team leaders should be responsible not only for an outcome but also for the decision-making process [16]. Moreover, leadership style has a tremendous impact on decision quality, “groups with directive (rather than participative) leaders more often make decisions consonant with leader’s initial information” [16, 43]. Discouraging others through leader’s point of view seems to be an ineffective way of establishing a Heart Team final decision [44].

However, biases could also be found in Heart Team members: advocacy-based process (in which members become motivated to win their point by arguing and proving other perspectives are wrong) [45] and “anchoring bias” (once a doctor has a decision, it becomes difficult to recognize it was wrong) [16]. Another important element is that decisions should be taken through discussion rather than voting (the majority rule forces the minority to compromise, which can mask deep disagreement) [46]. A psychologically safe atmosphere inside the Team in addition to a “gentle art of asking instead of telling” proves to be the key element to a real useful decision [47].

6. The Future of Heart Team: Where Are We Heading to?

“Underutilization, overutilization, and inappropriate use” of advanced and expensive cardiovascular therapies should be directly addressed by the Heart Teams [1].

As choices and treatments are now more complex, “the future of cardiology jobs may rest in Heart Teams.” [3] Moreover, as minimally invasive cardiac surgery develops and robotically assisted coronary bypass surgery and hybrid coronary revascularization procedures are emerging, we are witnessing a continuous changing in the management of various valvulopathies and ischaemic coronary disease [48].

The above observation that all Guidelines’ indications regarding Heart Team activation carry a Level C indication underlines the very future and the needs of this new Team: randomized controlled trials proving solid benefits in an evidence-based world [49]. It looks obvious that a final resolution yielded through a discussion gathering information from more specialists is more accurate and generates better cardiovascular outcomes, but until proofs, it is just a supposition.

Presently, even if the class of recommendation for gathering the Heart Team is I in various clinical situations (see Table 1), not every hospital has local protocols for activating it [50]. Moreover, Heart Team seems to be an “ideal platform for recruitment into trials of PCI vs CABG” as SYNTAX teams proved to be [51]. In addition, not all the hospitals detain on-site cardiac surgery, which makes the decisions biased toward PCI [52] (a situation almost similar to the contrary situation, as surgeons show a slight bias toward CABG) [53, 54].

Two important recent studies already revealed that, in some settings, Heart Team decisions proved to be highly reproducible and with good outcomes [26, 55]. Different study designs have been suggested to further evaluate the Heart Team concept: taking the same cases into consideration to different Heart Teams and comparing cardiovascular outcomes and treatment recommendations before and after Heart Team implementation [1, 26].

At the same time, there are contrary opinions regarding the utility of the Heart Teams: “as it stands today, “Heart Team” is more of a fictional euphemism, a kind of 'Platonic Illusion’ rather than a pragmatic reality.” [56] The future studies though should provide solid financial arguments and better survival rates in order to both sustain its complex decisions and justify its financial support. There is a need for new studies investigating the significance of delays in the decision-making process of Heart Team as well as financial aspects regarding its gatherings (healthcare providers reimburse Heart Teams for its decisions—in which inappropriate coronary revascularisations are lowered and outcomes are improved) [1].

Moreover, there is a need for web-based algorithms to offer interactive details (for both patients and professionals) on different therapies and strategies (similar to those from SYNTAX score II) [57]. An interactive computer program proved to be more effective than standard genetic counseling in educating breast cancer patients and reducing anxiety as well as increasing accurate risk perception [58]. Besides Heart Team management, a computer software dedicated for cardiovascular patients will better implement its evidence-based recommendations. As other research studies demonstrated, a further step should be considered when the patient himself/herself will attend their own discussion when Heart Team is functioning [17].

7. Conclusions

Envisioned as a tool for optimizing the management of various complex cardiovascular pathologies (coronary diseases, valvular pathology, and congenital diseases), Heart Team should therefore simplify and facilitate the activity in the cardiovascular ward dealing with complex situations. Future improvement of its functionality (members’ interactions, the way knowledge is transmitted throughout the Team, feedback algorithms, and patient involvement in the decisional process) and subsequent randomized controlled trials would increase the Team’s importance and implication in the management of complex cases. Finally, these facts should be translated into better cardiovascular outcomes and a lower psychological distress among Team participants. Despite all future changes, there must always be a constant part in each Heart Team: the patient should remain at the very center of the Team.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors equally contributed to this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Romanian Academy of Medical Sciences and European Regional Development Fund, MySMIS 107124: Funding Contract 2/Axa 1/31.07.2017/107124 SMIS, and by a grant of Ministry of Research and Innovation, CNCS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2016-0908, contract no. 167/2017, within PNCDI III.

References

S. J. Head, S. Kaul, M. J. Mack et al., “The rationale for heart team decision-making for patients with stable, complex coronary artery disease,” European Heart Journal, vol. 34, no. 32, pp. 2510–2518, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Windecker, P. Kolh, F. Alfonso et al., “2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the task force on myocardial revascularization of the European society of cardiology (ESC) and the European association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS) developed with the special contribution of the European association of percutaneous cardiovascular interventions (EAPCI),” European Heart Journal, vol. 35, no. 37, pp. 2541–2619, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. R. Holmes Jr., J. B. Rich, W. A. Zoghbi, and M. J. Mack, “The heart team of cardiovascular care,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 903–907, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Filardo, A. P. Maggioni, G. Mura et al., “The consequences of under-use of coronary revascularization: results of a cohort study in Northern Italy,” European Heart Journal, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 654–662, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. S. Baig, D. G. Altman, and D. P. Taggart, “Major geographical variations in elective coronary revascularization by stents or surgery in England,” European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 855–859, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
European Coronary Surgery Study Group, “Long-term results of prospective randomised study of coronary artery bypass surgery in stable angina pectoris,” Lancet (London, England), vol. 320, no. 8309, pp. 1173–1180, 1982.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. L. Murphy, H. N. Hultgren, K. Detre, J. Thomsen, and T. Takaro, “Treatment of chronic stable angina: a preliminary report of survival data of the randomized veterans administration cooperative study,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 297, no. 12, pp. 621–627, 1977.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. B. King III, H. X. Barnhart, A. S. Kosinski et al., “Angioplasty or surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: comparison of eligible registry and randomized patients in the EAST trial and influence of treatment selection on outcomes: emory angioplasty versus surgery trial investigators,” The American Journal of Cardiology, vol. 79, no. 11, pp. 1453–1459, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. W. Serruys, M.-C. Morice, A. P. Kappetein et al., “Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 360, no. 10, pp. 961–972, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C.-W. Nam, F. Mangiacapra, R. Entjes et al., “Functional SYNTAX score for risk assessment in multivessel coronary artery disease,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 1211–1218, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Burlacu, D. Siriopol, I. Nistor et al., “Clinical SYNTAX score—a good predictor for renal artery stenosis in acute myocardial infarction patients: analysis from the REN-ACS trial,” Archives of Medical Science, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 837–844, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Wijns, P. Kolh, N. Danchin et al., “Guidelines on myocardial revascularization,” European Heart Journal, vol. 31, no. 20, pp. 2501–2555, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Généreux, T. Palmerini, A. Caixeta et al., “SYNTAX score reproducibility and variability between interventional cardiologists, core laboratory technicians, and quantitative coronary measurements,” Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 553–561, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Shiomi, T. Tamura, S. Niki et al., “Inter- and intra-observer variability for assessment of the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXUS and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) score and association of the SYNTAX score with clinical outcome in patients undergoing unprotected left main stenting in the real world,” Circulation Journal: Official Journal of the Japanese Circulation Society, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 1130–1137, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. P. Taggart, R. Boyle, M. A. de Belder, and K. A. A. Fox, “The 2010 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularisation,” Heart, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 445-446, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kolbe, B. Grande, A. Marty et al., “Making heart team discussions work,” Structural Heart, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 100–103, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Long, H. Luckraz, J. Thekkudan, A. Maher, and M. Norell, “Heart team discussion in managing patients with coronary artery disease: outcome and reproducibility: interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery,” vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 594–598, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. D. Hillis, P. K. Smith, J. L. Anderson et al., “2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery,” Circulation, vol. 124, no. 23, pp. e652–e735, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
S. D. Fihn, J. C. Blankenship, K. P. Alexander et al., “2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS focused update of the guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines, and the American association for thoracic surgery, preventive cardiovascular nurses association, society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions, and society of thoracic surgeons,” The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, vol. 149, no. 3, pp. e5–e23, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Jaarsma, “Inter-professional team approach to patients with heart failure,” Heart, vol. 91, no. 6, pp. 832–838, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. Huffman, C. N. Adams, and C. M. Celano, “Collaborative care and related interventions in patients with heart disease: an update and new directions,” Psychosomatics, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Baumbach, D. Dudek, H. Baumgartner, S. Windecker, and M. Haude, “Evolving paradigms in valvular heart disease: where should guidelines move?” EuroIntervention, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 851–856, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Gabel, N. E. Hilton, and S. D. Nathanson, “Multidisciplinary breast cancer clinics,” Cancer, vol. 79, no. 12, pp. 2380–2384, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. L. Maxwell, “We asked, you answered: the heart team by the numbers,” 2016, https://www.tctmd.com/news/we-asked-you-answered-heart-team-numbers.
View at: Google Scholar
S. M. Shortell, R. H. Jones, A. W. Rademaker et al., “Assessing the impact of total quality management and organizational culture on multiple outcomes of care for coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients,” Medical Care, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 207–217, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. N. Pavlidis, D. Perera, G. V. Karamasis et al., “Implementation and consistency of Heart Team decision-making in complex coronary revascularisation,” International Journal of Cardiology, vol. 206, pp. 37–41, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. L. Leape, L. H. Hilborne, R. Bell, C. Kamberg, and R. H. Brook, “Underuse of cardiac procedures: do women, ethnic minorities, and the uninsured fail to receive needed revascularization?” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 130, no. 3, pp. 183–192, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Hemingway, A. M. Crook, G. Feder et al., “Underuse of coronary revascularization procedures in patients considered appropriate candidates for revascularization,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 344, no. 9, pp. 645–654, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Montalescot, U. Sechtem, S. Achenbach et al., “2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the task force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European society of cardiology,” European Heart Journal, vol. 34, no. 38, pp. 2949–3003, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Roffi, C. Patrono, J.-P. Collet et al., “2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: task force for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European society of cardiology (ESC),” European Heart Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 267–315, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Kirchhof, S. Benussi, D. Kotecha et al., “2016 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS,” European Heart Journal, vol. 37, no. 38, pp. 2893–2962, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Valgimigli, H. Bueno, R. A. Byrne et al., “2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: the task force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European society of cardiology (ESC) and of the European association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS),” European Heart Journal, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 213–260, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Ibanez, S. James, S. Agewall et al., “2017 ESC guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the task force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European society of cardiology (ESC),” European Heart Journal, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 119–177, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Baumgartner, V. Falk, J. J. Bax et al., “2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease,” European Heart Journal, vol. 38, no. 36, pp. 2739–2791, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
F.-J. Neumann, M. Sousa-Uva, A. Ahlsson et al., “2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization,” European Heart Journal, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 87–165, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
C. F. J. Antonides, M. J. Mack, and A. P. Kappetein, “Approaches to the role of the heart team in therapeutic decision making for heart valve disease,” Structural Heart, vol. 1, no. 5-6, pp. 249–255, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. S. Burke, E. Salas, K. Wilson-Donnelly, and H. Priest, “How to turn a team of experts into an expert medical team: guidance from the aviation and military communities,” Quality and Safety in Health Care, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. i96–i104, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Mojzisch and S. Schulz-Hardt, “Knowing others’ preferences degrades the quality of group decisions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. 794–808, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. G. H. Thyregod, F. Holmberg, T. A. Gerds et al., “Heart team therapeutic decision-making and treatment in severe aortic valve stenosis,” Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 146–153, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. L. Janis and I. L. Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, Houghton Mifflin Boston, Boston, MA, USA, 1982.
D. B. Raemer, M. Kolbe, R. D. Minehart, J. W. Rudolph, and M. C. M. Pian-Smith, “Improving anesthesiologists' ability to speak up in the operating room: a randomized controlled experiment of a simulation-based intervention and a qualitative analysis of hurdles and enablers,” Academic Medicine, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 530–539, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. M. Nembhard and A. C. Edmondson, “Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 941–966, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. R. Larson Jr., P. G. Foster-Fishman, and T. M. Franz, “Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 482–495, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Okuyama, C. Wagner, and B. Bijnen, “Speaking up for patient safety by hospital-based health care professionals: a literature review,” BMC Health Services Research, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 61, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. A. Hofmann, “Overcoming the obstacles to cross-functional decision making: laying the groundwork for collaborative problem solving,” Organizational Dynamics, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 17–25, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. R. Fitzgerald, S. Mohammed, and G. O. Kremer, “Differences in the way we decide: the effect of decision style diversity on process conflict in design teams,” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 104, pp. 339–344, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. H. Schein, Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2013.
R. M. Easterwood, I. C. Bostock, S. Nammalwar, J. N. McCullough, and A. Iribarne, “The evolution of minimally invasive cardiac surgery: from minimal access to transcatheter approaches,” Future Cardiology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 75–87, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Coylewright, M. J. Mack, D. R. Holmes, and P. T. O’Gara, “A call for an evidence-based approach to the heart team for patients with severe aortic stenosis,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 65, no. 14, pp. 1472–1480, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Yanagawa, J. D. Puskas, D. L. Bhatt, and S. Verma, “The coronary heart team,” Current Opinion in Cardiology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 627–632, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. L. Buchanan, A. Chieffo, and A. Colombo, “Is there still a survival advantage to bypass surgery over percutaneous intervention in the modern era?” Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 335–341, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Luckraz, M. Norell, M. Buch, R. James, and G. Cooper, “Structure and functioning of a multidisciplinary “Heart Team” for patients with coronary artery disease: rationale and recommendations from a joint BCS/BCIS/SCTS working group,” European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 524–529, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Huckman and G. P. Pisano, “Turf battles in coronary revascularization,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 352, no. 9, pp. 857–859, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Denvir, J. P. Pell, A. J. Lee et al., “Variations in clinical decision-making between cardiologists and cardiac surgeons; a case for management by multidisciplinary teams?” Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, vol. 1, no. 1, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. D. Puskas, A. Pawale, and S. K. Sharma, “Hybrid coronary revascularization: a new treatment paradigm for selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 1284–1286, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. P. Yadava, ““Heart team” concept—a reality or a “platonic illusion”,” Indian Heart Journal, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 681–683, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Farooq, D. van Klaveren, E. W. Steyerberg et al., “Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II,” The Lancet, vol. 381, no. 9867, pp. 639–650, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Green, S. K. Peterson, M. W. Baker et al., “Effect of a computer-based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: a randomized controlled trial,” JAMA, vol. 292, no. 4, pp. 442–452, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 Alexandru Burlacu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

922

Downloads

1506

Citations