Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 27–31 | Cite as

What the cardiothoracic surgeon wants to know from the radiologist: from X-ray reporting to imaging consultancy and Heart Team membership

  • Ad J. J. C. BogersEmail author
  • Stuart J. Head
  • A. Pieter Kappetein


In the early days of cardiac surgery, the pretreatment multidisciplinary discussion involved a presentation of the case history and diagnostic imaging by the clinical cardiologist. At this time, most, if not all, cardiac imaging techniques were in the hands of the cardiologist. If the radiologist made a report, this was done relatively late in the clinical process and only concerned the perioperative radiographs. In recent years, multidisciplinary decision-making in the context of a Heart Team has gained an increasingly important role in the process of decision-making with regard to the available therapy options in individual patients. Nevertheless, the concept of the Heart Team is still evolving. The minimal requirements for the Heart Team include the presence of the attending cardiologist, an interventional cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon. Those members of the Heart Team should be aware of the local possibilities, should correctly make conclusions about the available data and should put this information into the clinical context and preference of the patient. In addition, in areas where expertise in cardiac imaging such as CT and MRI is relevant, this would explicitly require expertise of the Heart Team in these specific areas, most often by involving a radiologist, to provide the optimal joint treatment strategy recommendation.


Heart Team Multidisciplinary team Shared clinical decision-making Guidelines Child Cardiothoracic surgery 


Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Kesson EM, Allardice GM, George WD et al (2012) Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13 722 women. BMJ 344:e2718PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ray-Coquard I, Thiesse P, Ranchere-Vince D et al (2004) Conformity to clinical practice guidelines, multidisciplinary management and outcome of treatment for soft tissue sarcomas. Ann Oncol 15:307–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Head SJ, Kaul S, Mack MJ et al (2013) The rationale for the Heart Team decision-making for patients with stable complex coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 34:2510–2518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P et al (2012) Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document (VARC-2). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 42:S45–S60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F et al (2012) Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012): the Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 42:S1–S44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Head SJ, Bogers AJJC, Serruys PW et al (2011) A crucial factor in shared decision making: the team approach. Lancet 377:1836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kolh P, Wijns W, Danchin N et al (2010) Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 38:S1–S52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL et al (2011) 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 124:2610–2642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hopkins LN, Holmes DR Jr, Ramee S (2007) Turf wars and silos-joined at the hip: what can be done? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 69:764–765PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fleissig A, Jenkins V, Catt S (2006) Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK? Lancet Oncol 7:935–943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ko DT, Tu JV, Samadashvili Z et al (2010) Temporal trends in the use of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass surgery in New York State and Ontario. Circulation 121:2635–2644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Gold J et al (2010) Adherence of catheterization laboratory cardiologists to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery: what happens in actual practice? Circulation 121:267–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chandrasekharan DP, Taggart DP (2011) Informed consent for interventions in stable coronary artery disease: problems, etiologies, and solutions. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 39:912–917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Denvir MA, Pell JP, Lee AJ et al (2006) Variations in clinical decision-making between cardiologists and cardiac surgeons; a case for management by multidisciplinary teams? J Cardiothorac Surg 1:2PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lipkin M (2013) Shared decision making. JAMA Intern Med 173:1204–1205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oshima Lee E, Emanuel EJ (2013) Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. N Engl J Med 368:6–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sidhom MA, Poulsen MG (2006) Multidisciplinary care in oncology: medicolegal implications of group decisions. Lancet Oncol 7:951–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP et al (2005) The SYNTAX Score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention 1:219–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP et al (2009) Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 360:961–972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Mack MJ et al (2011) Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J 32:2125–2134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shahian DM, O’Brien SM, Filardo G et al (2009) The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 1—coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 88:S2–S22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roques F, Michel P, Goldstone AR et al (2003) The logistic EuroSCORE. Eur Heart J 24:881–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nashef SA, Roques F, Sharples LD et al (2012) EuroSCORE II. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 41:734–744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ranucci M, Castelvecchio S, Menicanti L et al (2009) Risk of assessing mortality risk in elective cardiac operations: age, creatinine, ejection fraction, and the law of parsimony. Circulation 119:3053–3061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sanchez CE, Badhwar V, Dota A et al (2013) Practical implementation of the coronary revascularization heart team. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 6:598–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hamlyn-Harris JH, Hurst BJ, von Baggo K et al (2006) Predictors of team work satisfaction. J Inf Technol Educ 5:299–315Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Feit F, Brooks MM, Sopko G et al (2000) Long-term clinical outcome in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation Registry: comparison with the randomized trial. BARI Investigators. Circulation 101:2795–2802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pereira AC, Lopes NH, Soares PR et al (2006) Clinical judgment and treatment options in stable multivessel coronary artery disease: results from the one-year follow-up of the MASS II (Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study II). J Am Coll Cardiol 48:948–953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gabel M, Hilton NE, Nathanson SD (1997) Multidisciplinary breast cancer clinics. Do they work? Cancer 79:2380–2384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mack MJ, Brennan JM, Brindis R et al (2013) Outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States. JAMA 310:2069–2077PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Long J, Luckraz H, Thekkudan J et al (2012) Heart team discussion in managing patients with coronary artery disease: outcome and reproducibility. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 14:594–598PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R et al (2010) Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence? BMJ 340:c951PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ad J. J. C. Bogers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stuart J. Head
    • 2
  • A. Pieter Kappetein
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Cardiothoracic SurgeryErasmus MCRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Cardiothoracic SurgeryErasmus MCRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations