ABSTRACT
Cardiovascular multidisciplinary heart teams (MDHTs) have evolved significantly over the past decade. These teams play a central role in the treatment of a wide array of cardiovascular diseases affecting interventional cardiology, cardiac surgery, interventional imaging, advanced heart failure, adult congenital heart disease, cardio-oncology, and cardio-obstetrics. To meet the specific needs of both patients and heart programs, the composition and function of cardiovascular MDHTs have had to adapt and evolve. Although lessons have been learned from multidisciplinary cancer care, best practices for the operation of cardiovascular MDHTs have yet to be defined, and the evidence base supporting their effectiveness is limited. This expert panel review discusses the history and evolution of cardiovascular MDHTs, their composition and role in treating patients across a broad spectrum of disciplines, basic tenets for successful operation, and the future challenges facing them.
ABSTRACT
The time between onset of cardiogenic shock and initiation of mechanical circulatory support is inversely related to patient survival as delays in transporting patients to the operating room (OR) for venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) could prove fatal. A primed and portable VA ECMO system may allow faster initiation of ECMO in various hospital locations and subsequently improve outcomes for patients in cardiogenic shock. We reviewed our institutional experience with VA ECMO based on two time periods: beginning of our VA ECMO program and from initiation of our primed and portable in-hospital ECMO system. The primary endpoint was patient survival to discharge. A total of 137 patients were placed on VA ECMO during the study period; n = 66 (48%) before and n = 71 (52%) after program initiation. In the second era, the proportion of OR ECMO initiation decreased significantly (from 92% to 49%, p < 0.01) as more patients received ECMO in other hospital units, including the emergency department (p < 0.01) and during cardiac arrest (12% vs. 38%, p < 0.01). Survival to hospital discharge was equivalent between the two groups (30% vs. 42%, p = 0.1) despite more patients being placed on ECMO during ongoing cardiac arrest. Finally, we observed increased clinical volume since initiation of the in-hospital, portable ECMO system. Developing an in-hospital, primed and portable VA ECMO program resulted in increased clinical volume with equivalent patient survival despite a sicker cohort of patients. We conclude that more rapid deployment of VA ECMO may extend the treatment eligibility to more patients and improve patient outcomes.
ABSTRACT
[Figure: see text].
