ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
The modified heart team protocol facilitated the revascularization decision-making quality in complex coronary artery disease.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of large language models in complex coronary artery disease decision-making and potential improvement strategy in a real-world cohort.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- AI-Automated Risk Operative Stratification for Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesA lack of standardization in heart team implementation potentially leads to suboptimal decision-making quality, and we previously established a modified heart team protocol to improve the decision-making quality. The present trial was to validate the effect of the modified heart team implementation protocol on improving the decision-making quality versus the conventional protocol in complex coronary artery disease (CAD).
methodsEligible interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons and non-interventional cardiologists were randomly allocated to the intervention or control arm and established 12 heart teams in each arm. The 12 heart teams in each arm were randomly divided into 6 pairs, and 480 historic cases with complex CAD into 6 sets of 80 cases. In each arm, each set of 80 cases was discussed independently by one pair of heart teams, with each case finally receiving two heart team decisions ('pairwise decisions'). The intervention arm conducted heart team decision-making according to the previously established protocol and the control arm based on guideline recommendations. The primary outcome was the overall percent agreement of the inter-team pairwise decisions. Decision-making appropriateness was further analysed.
resultsA total of 36 cardiac surgeons, 36 interventional cardiologists and 12 non-interventional cardiologists from 26 centres were enrolled. The overall percent agreement was significantly higher in the intervention arm than the control arm (72.1% vs 65.8%, P = 0.04; kappa 0.51 vs 0.37). Both team-level (19.4% vs 33.0%; P < 0.001) and specialist-level (interventional cardiologists, 19.8% vs 37.7%, P < 0.001; cardiac surgeons, 19.8% vs 28.7%, P < 0.001) inappropriateness rate of decision-making was significantly lower in the intervention arm than the control arm.
conclusionsThe modified heart team implementation protocol improved the decision-making quality and appropriateness compared with the guideline-based protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.