J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026 Feb 25:S0735-1097(26)00070-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2026.01.010. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The routine implementation of heart teams for patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) is challenging due to the insufficient multidisciplinary specialist resources for face-to-face discussion. A real-time heart team during the angiography, based on an online meeting, offers the potential to efficiently integrate resources.
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we sought to evaluate the implementation value and safety of a "real-time heart team" decision making approach.
METHODS: This noninferiority randomized controlled trial enrolled patients with de novo left main or 3-vessel CAD at 3 cardiac centers. Patients were randomly assigned to the conventional heart team group (discussed by a face-to-face meeting after the angiography) or the real-time heart team group (discussed by an online meeting during the angiography). Implementation value outcomes included care efficiency (waiting time for treatment, recatheterization, specialist workload, and economic outcomes) and process evaluation metrics (discussion adequacy, surgeon participation, and shared decision making). The safety outcomes were a composite of 1-year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned revascularization, and readmission due to reangina) and revascularization decision making.
RESULTS: Overall, 490 complex CAD patients were included, with 245 patients in each group. Waiting time for final therapy (median: 2 days [Q1-Q3: 0-7 days] vs 5 days [Q1-Q3: 2-10 days]; P < 0.001), recatheterization rate (12.5% vs 98.9%; P < 0.001), specialist high workload rate (5.3% vs 29.0%; P < 0.001), and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) hospitalization cost (percentage of decrease: 18.0%; P < 0.001) were significantly reduced in the real-time group. More discussion time spent (4.0 ± 1.8 min vs 3.4 ± 1.6 min), better specialist satisfaction (based on NASA Task Load Index scale), more chief surgeon participation (26.5% vs 18.8%), but less multidisciplinary synchronous shared decision making (2.0% vs 11.5%) were found in the real-time group. The real-time heart team group was noninferior to the conventional group in 1-year MACCE (8.2% vs 10.6%; risk difference: -2.45%; 95% CI: -7.61%-2.71%; P for noninferiority < 0.001). The proportions of PCI, coronary artery bypass grafting, and medical therapy were similar between the 2 groups (P = 0.892).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the conventional heart team, the real-time heart team significantly improved care efficiency and process evaluation metrics, with similar clinical outcomes and decision making. However, insufficient shared decision making and intercenter generalizability should be optimized before widespread implementation of this approach. (Feasibility and Effectiveness of a Real-Time Heart Team Approach in Complex CAD [EHEART; NCT05514210]).
PMID:41778947 | DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2026.01.010