ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)
Insights from a multidisciplinary heart team for highest-risk valve disease.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center). 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.
- The multidisciplinary heart team: gatekeeper or last resort?Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multidisciplinary heart team (MHT) evaluation is a class I recommendation for coronary and structural heart disease, yet limited outcomes data exist for high-risk and complex valvular heart disease (VHD) patients referred for surgery. Methods: From June 2021 to August 2022, our institutional MHT-comprising cardiac surgeons, interventional cardiologists, heart failure specialists, advanced imaging specialists, intensivists, and palliative care specialists-evaluated the highest-risk or complex VHD patients. Patient demographics, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality scores, initial treatment plans, final team recommendations, and outcomes, including adherence to recommendations, 30-day readmission, and mortality at 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years were analyzed. Results: Among 121 patients, the MHT recommended surgery for 67%, transcatheter intervention for 14%, a hybrid approach for 3%, and medical management (MM) for 17%. Overall adherence to MHT recommendations was 89%. Thirty-day mortality was 7/81 (9%) for surgical patients, 3/17 (18%) for transcatheter, 0/3 for hybrid, and 4/20 (20%) for MM. By 2 years, mortality rose to 17/81 (21%) for surgery, 9/17 (53%) for transcatheter, 1/3 (33%) for hybrid, and 11/20 (55%) for MM. Conclusion: MHT evaluation facilitates individualized treatment strategies by distinguishing patients who may benefit from intervention despite high procedural risk, while sparing those unlikely to benefit.
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.