ArticleEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2025
EACVI survey on the role, structure, and implementation of heart teams in current cardiology practice.
Article in European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Multicenter, Mixed Methods Study of United States Heart Teams and Health Policy: The EVOLVE Study Design and Protocol.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: The Heart Team (HT) concept is underscored in multiple guidelines, but the practical application is still challenging. Objective: This survey, endorsed by the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) Scientific Initiatives Committee and conducted by the EACVI Leaders of Tomorrow, aimed to explore the structure and dynamics of contemporary HTs in real-life clinical practice. Methods and results: The Survey comprised 24 questions, including single-choice, multiple-choice, and open-labeled formats. It addressed all cardiologists and associated specialists involved in the HT meetings via online platform. A total of 233 responses were collected from 48 countries, 203 (87%) from Europe. Most respondents were imaging specialists (38%) and general cardiologists (29%), with 85% actively engaged in HT meetings. Twelve distinct HT configurations were identified. Core HT members included general and interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and imaging specialists. Complex cases are usually discussed at HT meetings, and ESC guidelines serve as a guiding framework (87%). Leadership within HTs is inconsistent and regular HT audits are lacking in 53% of centers. The Heart Team predominantly focus on treatment planning (97%) rather than outcome review (45%) or education (36%). Key perceived benefits include structured decision-making (74%), optimized management of complex cases (69%), and reduced specialty bias (67%). Recognized barriers included scheduling constraints, resource limitations, and communication inefficiencies. Conclusion: This survey shows the important role of multidisciplinary HTs in contemporary clinical practice but reveals several areas of potential improvement. Addressing common challenges could result in more efficient HT practices and improve the care of complex patient cases in various cardiology subspecialty areas.
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.