Key result
Trial tests real-time electronic Heart Team against conventional multidisciplinary care in complex CAD.
Why the study?
Heart team implementation faces many challenges, and evidence supporting an electronic real-time heart team decision-making approach to evaluate its safety and feasibility in complex CAD is lacking.
Does an electronic real-time heart team decision-making approach improve feasibility and prevent adverse clinical outcomes in patients with complex coronary artery disease?
RCT (n=490)
Open-label
Block randomization
Yes
Does an electronic real-time heart team decision-making approach improve feasibility and prevent adverse clinical outcomes in patients with complex coronary artery disease?
The EHEART trial protocol outlines a study to determine if a real-time electronic heart team approach during angiography is safe and more feasible than conventional post-angiography heart team discussions for complex CAD.
This RCT will test non-inferiority and feasibility of real-time electronic heart teams in complex CAD; provides first randomized evidence on the approach.
INTRODUCTION: The implementation of a heart team still faces many challenges which may be facilitated with advanced communication technology. There is a knowledge gap to support the use of an electronic real-time heart team decision-making approach based on communication technology in the real clinical practice and evaluate its safety and feasibility in patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EHEART (Electronic HEArt team with Real-Time decision-making) trial is a prospective, multicentre, two-arm, randomised controlled trial that will randomise 490 patients with complex CAD to either an electronic real-time heart team group or conventional heart team group. For patients allocated to the real-time electronic group, heart team meetings will be initiated during the coronary angiography and guided by a supporting system based on communication technology to help with information synchronisation, real-time communication between specialists, meeting process recording and assistance and joint decision-making with patients' families. The primary and safety endpoint is a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularisation or re-angina hospital admission at 1 year. The primary secondary outcome is the time interval from the coronary angiography to the final treatment, which is the major indicator of feasibility. We will also compare the practical feasibility from the specialist's and patient's perspectives (for example, specialist's workload and patient's decision results) between the two groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Fuwai Hospital (no. 2022-1749). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The results of this trial will be disseminated through manuscript publication and national/international conferences, and reported in the trial registry entry. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05514210).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Su et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Complex coronary artery disease (n=490). Electronic real-time heart team decision-making approach vs. Conventional heart team approach was evaluated on Composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularisation or re-angina hospital admission at 1 year. An electronic real-time heart team decision-making approach will be evaluated for non-inferiority in 1-year clinical outcomes and superiority in feasibility compared to a conventional heart team in 490 patients with complex coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: