Key result
Randomized trial tests standardized heart team protocol to improve revascularization decision agreement in complex CAD.
Why the study?
Although recommended by guidelines, how to organise and implement heart teams in a standardised way has not been validated, and decision instability exists in guideline-based protocols.
Does a standardised heart team protocol improve revascularisation decision stability compared to a guideline-based protocol among cardiac specialists evaluating stable complex CAD cases?
RCT (n=480)
Single-blind
Stratified randomization
Yes
Does a standardised heart team protocol improve revascularisation decision stability compared to a guideline-based protocol among cardiac specialists evaluating stable complex CAD cases?
This randomized trial protocol outlines a study to determine if a standardized, evidence-based heart team protocol improves the consistency of revascularization decisions for complex CAD compared to standard guideline-based heart teams.
Introduction A multidisciplinary heart team approach has been recommended by revascularisation guidelines, but how to organise and implement the heart team in a standardised way has not been validated. Inter-team and intra-team decision instability existed in the guideline-based heart team protocol, and our standardised heart team protocol based on a mixed method study may improve decision stability. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of the standardised heart team protocol versus the guideline-based protocol on decision-making stability in stable complex coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and analysis Eighty-four eligible interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons or non-interventional cardiologists from 26 hospitals in China have been enrolled. They will be randomised to a standardised heart team protocol group or a guideline-based protocol group to make revascularisation decisions for 480 historic cases (from a prospective registry) with stable complex CAD. In the standardised group, we will establish 12 heart teams based on an evidence-based protocol, including specialist selection, specialist training, team composition, team training and a standardised meeting process. In the guideline-based group, we will organise 12 heart teams according to the guideline principles, including team composition and standardised meeting process. The primary outcome is the overall percent agreement in revascularisation decisions between heart teams within a group. To demonstrate the clinical implication of decision-making stability, we will further explore the association between decision stability and 1-year clinical outcomes. Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Fuwai Hospital (No. 2019-1303). All participants have provided informed consent and all patients included as historic cases provided written informed consent at the time of entry to the prospective registry. 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 NCT05039567 .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Stable complex coronary artery disease (n=480). Standardised heart team protocol vs. Guideline-based heart team protocol was evaluated on Overall percent agreement (OPA) in revascularisation decisions between heart teams within a group. The standardized heart team protocol is being evaluated in a randomized trial to determine if it improves revascularization decision stability compared to a guideline-based protocol in patients with stable complex coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: