REFERENCES

1. Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American college of cardiology/american heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 2022;145:e18-114.

2. Head SJ, Kaul S, Mack MJ, et al. The rationale for heart team decision-making for patients with stable, complex coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 2013;34:2510-8.

3. Chu D, Anastacio MM, Mulukutla SR, et al. Safety and efficacy of implementing a multidisciplinary heart team approach for revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease: an observational cohort pilot study. JAMA Surg 2014;149:1109-12.

4. Sanchez CE, Dota A, Badhwar V, et al. Revascularization heart team recommendations as an adjunct to appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2016;88:E103-12.

5. Metkus TS, Beckie TM, Cohen MG, et al. The heart team for coronary revascularization decisions: 2 illustrative cases. JACC Case Rep 2022;4:115-20.

6. Holmes DR Jr, Mack MJ, Kaul S, et al. 2012 ACCF/AATS/SCAI/STS expert consensus document on transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:1200-54.

7. Doll JA, Ohman EM, Patel MR, et al. A team-based approach to patients in cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2016;88:424-33.

8. Bloomer TL, Thomassee EJ, Fong PP. Acute pulmonary embolism network and multidisciplinary response team approach to treatment. Crit Pathw Cardiol 2015;14:90-6.

9. Luckraz H, Norell M, Buch M, James R, Cooper G. Structure and functioning of a multidisciplinary “heart team” for patients with coronary artery disease: rationale and recommendations from a joint BCS/BCIS/SCTS working group. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015;48:524-9.

10. Blankenship JC, Patel K. High rates of ad hoc PCI may mandate a modified heart team approach. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2023;16:1743-5.

11. Kolh P, Windecker S, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the task force on myocardial revascularization of the european society of cardiology (ESC) and the European association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European association of percutaneous cardiovascular interventions (EAPCI). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014;46:517-92.

12. Faridi KF, Rymer JA, Rao SV, et al. Ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease: a report from the national cardiovascular data registry cathPCI registry. Am Heart J 2019;216:53-61.

13. Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Walford G, et al. Predictors and outcomes of ad hoc versus non-ad hoc percutaneous coronary interventions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:350-6.

14. Hannan EL, Zhong Y, Cozzens K, et al. Ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention in stable patients with multivessel or unprotected left main disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2023;16:1733-42.

15. Vander Salm TJ, Kip KE, Jones RH, et al. What constitutes optimal surgical revascularization? : Answers from the bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation (BARI). J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:565-72.

16. Gaba P, Gersh BJ, Ali ZA, Moses JW, Stone GW. Complete versus incomplete coronary revascularization: definitions, assessment and outcomes. Nat Rev Cardiol 2021;18:155-68.

17. Yanagawa B, Puskas JD, Bhatt DL, Verma S. The coronary heart team. Curr Opin Cardiol 2017;32:627-32.

18. Sanchez CE, Badhwar V, Dota A, et al. Practical implementation of the coronary revascularization heart team. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2013;6:598-603.

19. Pavlidis AN, Perera D, Karamasis GV, et al. Implementation and consistency of heart team decision-making in complex coronary revascularisation. Int J Cardiol 2016;206:37-41.

20. Rocha RV, Wang X, Fremes SE, et al. Variations in coronary revascularization practices and their effect on long-term outcomes. J Am Heart Assoc 2022;11:e022770.

21. King III SB, Barnhart HX, Kosinski AS, et al. Angioplasty or surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: comparison of eligible registry and randomized patients in the EAST Trial and influence of treatment selection on outcomes. Emory angioplasty versus surgery trial investigators. Am J Cardiol 1997;79:1453-9.

22. Hamm CW, Reimers J, Ischinger T, Rupprecht HJ, Berger J, Bleifeld W. A randomized study of coronary angioplasty compared with bypass surgery in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1037-43.

23. Feit F, Brooks MM, Sopko G, et al. Long-term clinical outcome in the bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation registry. Comparison with the randomized trial. Circulation 2000;101:2795-802.

24. BARI Investigators. The BARI protocol. Protocol for the bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation. Circulation 1991;84[suppl V]:V-1-27.Avaliable from: https://biolincc.nhlbi.nih.gov/media/studies/bari/Protocol.pdf?link_time=2019-12-02_01:21:53.397374 [Last accessed on 19 Jan 2024].

25. The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010;38:S1-52.

26. Yamasaki M, Abe K, Horikoshi R, et al. Enhanced outcomes for coronary artery disease obtained by a multidisciplinary heart team approach. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019;67:841-8.

27. Papolos AI, Kenigsberg BB, Berg DD, et al. Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Investigators. Management and outcomes of cardiogenic shock in cardiac ICUs with versus without shock teams. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;78:1309-17.

28. Holmes DR Jr, Rich JB, Zoghbi WA, Mack MJ. The heart team of cardiovascular care. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:903-7.

29. Young MN, Kolte D, Cadigan ME, et al. Multidisciplinary heart team approach for complex coronary artery disease: single center clinical presentation. J Am Heart Assoc 2020;9:e014738.

30. Campos CM, Stanetic BM, Farooq V, et al. SYNTAX II Study Group. Risk stratification in 3-vessel coronary artery disease: applying the SYNTAX score II in the heart team discussion of the SYNTAX II trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2015;86:E229-38.

31. Ma H, Lin S, Li X, Wang Y, Xu B, Zheng Z. Effect of a standardised heart team protocol versus a guideline-based protocol on revascularisation decision stability in stable complex coronary artery disease: rationale and design of a randomised trial of cardiology specialists using historic cases. BMJ Open 2022;12:e064761.

32. Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, et al. ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization focused update: a report of the American college of cardiology foundation appropriate use criteria task force, society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions, society of thoracic surgeons, American association for thoracic surgery, American heart association, american society of nuclear cardiology, and the society of cardiovascular computed tomography. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;143:780-803.

33. Sousa-Uva M, Neumann FJ, Ahlsson A, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2019;55:4-90.

34. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019;40:87-165.

35. Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: executive summary: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 2022;145:e4-17.

36. Serruys PW, Holmes DR, Farooq V, et al. Differences and similarities between American and European myocardial revascularization guidelines. In: Serruys PW, Holmes DR, Farooq V, editors. State of the art surgical coronary revascularization. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021. pp. 115-20.

37. Stirrup J, Velasco A, Hage FG, Reyes E. Comparison of ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines for myocardial revascularization. J Nucl Cardiol 2017;24:1046-53.

38. Mishra PK, Luckraz H, Aktuerk D, Thekkudan J, Mahboob S, Norell M. How does the “heart team” decision get enacted for patients with coronary artery disease? Heart Asia 2014;6:31-3.

39. Domingues CT, Milojevic M, Thuijs DJFM, et al. Heart team decision making and long-term outcomes for 1000 consecutive cases of coronary artery disease. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2019;28:206-13.

40. Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, et al. ISCHEMIA Research Group. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1395-407.

41. Lee C, Tully A, Fang JC, et al. Building and optimizing the interdisciplinary heart team. J Soc Cardiovasc Angio Interv 2023;2:101067.

42. Batchelor WB, Anwaruddin S, Wang DD, et al. The multidisciplinary heart team in cardiovascular medicine: current role and future challenges. JACC Adv 2023;2:100160.

43. Tsang MB, Schwalm JD, Gandhi S, et al. Comparison of heart team vs interventional cardiologist recommendations for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2012749.

44. Vervoort D, Dearani JA, Starnes VA, Thourani VH, Nguyen TC. Brave new world: virtual conferencing and surgical education in the coronavirus disease 2019 era. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021;161:748-52.

45. Johnson BJ, Mabry JB. Remote work video meetings: workers’ emotional exhaustion and practices for greater well-being. Ger J Hum Resour Manage 2022;36:380-408.

46. Elbogen EB, Lanier M, Griffin SC, et al. A national study of zoom fatigue and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: implications for future remote work. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2022;25:409-15.

47. Bergmann R, Rintel S, Baym N, et al. Meeting (the) pandemic: videoconferencing fatigue and evolving tensions of sociality in enterprise video meetings during COVID-19. Comput Support Coop Work 2023;32:347-83.

48. Kezerle L, Yohanan E, Cohen A, et al. The impact of Heart Team discussion on decision making for coronary revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease. J Card Surg 2020;35:2719-24.

49. Kabrhel C, Rosovsky R, Channick R, et al. A multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response team: initial 30-month experience with a novel approach to delivery of care to patients with submassive and massive pulmonary embolism. Chest 2016;150:384-93.

50. Bonzel T, Schächinger V, Dörge H. Description of a heart team approach to coronary revascularization and its beneficial long-term effect on clinical events after PCI. Clin Res Cardiol 2016;105:388-400.

51. Holmes DR Jr, Mack M. The truly functional heart team: the devil is in the details. J Am Heart Assoc 2020;9:e05035.

52. Patterson T, McConkey HZR, Ahmed-Jushuf F, et al. Long-term outcomes following heart team revascularization recommendations in complex coronary artery disease. J Am Heart Assoc 2019;8:e011279.

53. Simcock R, Heaford A. Costs of multidisciplinary teams in cancer are small in relation to benefits. BMJ 2012;344:e3700.

54. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021;162:e183-353.

55. Dehmer GJ, Grines CL, Bakaeen FG, et al. Writing Committee Members. 2023 AHA/ACC clinical performance and quality measures for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association joint committee on performance measures. J Am Coll Cardiol 2023;82:1131-74.

56. Eurlings CGMJ, Bektas S, Sanders-van Wijk S, et al. Use of artificial intelligence to assess the risk of coronary artery disease without additional (non-invasive) testing: validation in a low-risk to intermediate-risk outpatient clinic cohort. BMJ Open 2022;12:e055170.

57. Panahiazar M, Chern Y, Riojas R, et al. An ontology for cardiothoracic surgical education and clinical data analytics. Stud Health Technol Inform 2022;294:407-8.

58. Hurwitz J, Kirsch D. Machine learning for dummies, IBM limited edition. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2018.