Coronary artery disease (CAD), which is the manifestation of atherosclerosis in coronary arteries, is the most common single cause of death and is responsible for disabilities of millions of people worldwide. Despite numerous dedicated clinical studies and an enormous effort to develop diagnostic and therapeutic methods, coronary atherosclerosis remains one of the most serious medical problems of the modern world. Hence, new markers are still being sought to identify and manage CAD optimally. Trying to face this problem, we have raised the question of the most predominant gastrointestinal hormones; glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), mainly involved in carbohydrates disorders, could be also used as new markers of incidence, clinical course, and recurrence of CAD and are related to extent and severity of atherosclerosis and myocardial ischemia. We describe GIP and GLP-1 as expressed in many animal and human tissues, known to be connected to inflammation and related to enormous noncardiac and cardiovascular (CV) diseases. In animals, GIP and GLP-1 improve endothelial function and lead to reduced atherosclerotic plaque macrophage infiltration and stabilize atherosclerotic lesions by directly blocking monocyte migration. Moreover, in humans, GIPR activation induces the pro-atherosclerotic factors ET-1 (endothelin-1) and OPN (osteopontin) but also has anti-atherosclerotic effects through secretion of NO (nitric oxide). Furthermore, four large clinical trials showed a significant reduction in composite of CV death, MI, and stroke in long-term follow-up using GLP-1 analogs for DM 2 patients: liraglutide in LEADER, semaglutide in SUSTAIN-6, dulaglutide in REWIND and albiglutide in HARMONY. However, very little is known about GIP metabolism in the acute phase of myocardial ischemia or for stable patients with CAD, which constitutes a direction for future research. This review aims to comprehensively discuss the impact of GIP and GLP-1 on atherosclerosis and CAD and its potential therapeutic implications.

Background: The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate outcomes of patients with severe coronary artery disease (CAD) after implementing various treatment strategies following multidisciplinary Heart Team (MHT) discussion. Methods Primary and secondary endpoints and quality of life during a mean (SD) follow-up of 37 (14) months of patients with severe CAD (three-vessel [3-VD] or/and left main [LM] disease) qualified after MHT discussion to optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone, OMT and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), or OMT and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were evaluated. As the primary endpoint, major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat/need for revascularization) were considered. Result: From 2016 to 2019, 176 MHT meetings were held, and a total of 1286 participants with severe CAD and completely implemented MHT decisions (OMT, CABG, or PCI for 251, 356, and 679 patients, respectively) were included. The occurrence of the primary endpoint was significantly increased in OMT-group (154 (61.4%) vs. CABG and PCI groups—110 (30.9%) and 302 (44.5%) patients, respectively (p < 0.05). For interventional strategies only—CABG was associated with reduced rates of MACCE and repeat revascularization, while the superiority of PCI for stroke and disabling stroke was observed (p < 0.05). The general health status assessed at the end of the follow-up was significantly better for patients who underwent CABG or PCI than in the OMT group (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In this real-life study, we presented a single-center experience of providing optimal medical care for patients with severe CAD following MHT discussion.

The outcomes from real-life clinical studies regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) are still poorly investigated. In this retrospective study we assessed 5-year outcomes: primary, secondary endpoints and quality of life of 1035 individuals with severe coronary artery disease (CAD) treated either with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)—356 patients or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)—679 patients according to the recommendation of a local Heart Team (HT). At 5 years no significant difference in overall mortality and rates of myocardial infarctions (MI) were observed between CABG and PCI cohorts (11.0% vs. 13.4% for PCI, P = 0.27 and 9.6% vs. 12.8% for PCI, P = 0.12, respectively). The incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), mainly driven by increased rates of repeat revascularization (RR) were higher in PCI-cohort than in CABG-group (56.1% vs. 40.4%, P < 0.01 and 26.8% vs. 12.6%, P < 0.01, respectively), while CABG-patients experienced stroke more often (7.3% vs. 3.1% for PCI, P < 0.01). In real-life practice with long-term follow-up, none of the two revascularization modalities implemented following HT decisions showed overwhelming superiority: occurrence of death and MI were similar, rates of RR favoured CABG, while incidence of strokes advocated PCI.

Background: This retrospective study was proposed to investigate outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) after implementation of various treatment strategies following dedicated Heart Team (HT) decisions. Methods: Primary and secondary endpoints and quality of life during a median follow-up of 866 days of patients with severe AS qualified after HT discussion to: optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone, OMT and transcather aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or OMT and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) were evaluated. As the primary endpoint composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal disabling strokes and non-fatal rehospitalizations for AS were considered, while other clinical outcomes were determined as secondary endpoints. Results: From 2016 to 2019, 176 HT meetings were held, and a total of 482 participants with severe AS and completely implemented HT decisions (OMT, TAVR and SAVR for 79, 318 and 85, respectively) were included in the final analysis. SAVR and TAVR were found to be superior to OMT for primary and all secondary endpoints (p < 0.05). Comparing interventional strategies only, TAVR was associated with reduced risk of acute kidney injury, new onset of atrial fibrillation and major bleeding, while the superiority of SAVR for major vascular complications and need for permanent pacemaker implantation was observed (p < 0.05). The quality of life assessed at the end of follow-up was significantly better for patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR than in OMT-group (p < 0.05). Conclusions: We demonstrated that after careful implementation of HT decisions interventional strategies compared to OMT only provide superior outcomes and quality of life for patients with AS.

Background: This study was purposed to investigate which treatment strategy was associated with the most favourable prognosis for patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) following Heart Team (HT)-decisions implementation. Methods: In this retrospective study, long-term outcomes of patients with severe MR qualified after HT discussion to: optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone, OMT and MitraClip (MC) procedure or OMT and mitral valve replacement (MVR) were evaluated. The primary endpoint was defined as cardiovascular (CV) death and the secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarctions (MI), strokes, hospitalizations for heart failure exacerbation and CV events during a mean (standard deviation [SD]) follow-up of 29 (15) months. Results: From 2016 to 2019, 176 HT meetings were held and a total of 157 participants (mean age [SD] = 71.0 [9.2], 63.7% male) with severe MR and completely implemented HT decisions (OMT, MC or MVR for 53, 58 and 46 patients, respectively) were included into final analysis. Comparing OMT, MC and MVR groups statistically significant differences between the implemented procedures and occurrence of primary and secondary endpoints with the most frequent in OMT-group were observed (p < 0.05). However, for interventional strategy MC was non-inferior to MVR for all endpoints (p > 0.05). General health status assessed at the end of follow-up were significantly the lowest for MVR, then for MC and the highest for OMT-group (p < 0.01). Conclusions: In the present study it was demonstrated that after careful HT evaluation of patients with severe MR at high risk of surgery, percutaneous strategy (MC) can be considered as equivalent to surgical treatment (MVR) with non-inferior outcomes. Background: This study was purposed to investigate which treatment strategy was associated with the most favourable prognosis for patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) following Heart Team (HT)-decisions implementation. Methods: In this retrospective study, long-term outcomes of patients with severe MR qualified after HT discussion to: optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone, OMT and MitraClip (MC) procedure or OMT and mitral valve replacement (MVR) were evaluated. The primary endpoint was defined as cardiovascular (CV) death and the secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarctions (MI), strokes, hospitalizations for heart failure exacerbation and CV events during a mean (standard deviation [SD]) follow-up of 29 (15) months. Results: From 2016 to 2019, 176 HT meetings were held and a total of 157 participants (mean age [SD] = 71.0 [9.2], 63.7% male) with severe MR and completely implemented HT decisions (OMT, MC or MVR for 53, 58 and 46 patients, respectively) were included into final analysis. Comparing OMT, MC and MVR groups statistically significant differences between the implemented procedures and occurrence of primary and secondary endpoints with the most frequent in OMT-group were observed (p < 0.05). However, for interventional strategy MC was non-inferior to MVR for all endpoints (p > 0.05). General health status assessed at the end of follow-up were significantly the lowest for MVR, then for MC and the highest for OMT-group (p < 0.01). Conclusions: In the present study it was demonstrated that after careful HT evaluation of patients with severe MR at high risk of surgery, percutaneous strategy (MC) can be considered as equivalent to surgical treatment (MVR) with non-inferior outcomes.

The multidisciplinary Heart Team (HT) remains the standard of care for highly-burdened patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and valvular heart disease (VHD) and is widely adopted in the medical community and supported by European and American guidelines. An approach of highly-experienced specialists, taking into account numerous clinical factors, risk assessment, long-term prognosis and patients preferences seems to be the most rational option for individuals with. Some studies suggest that HT management may positively impact adherence to current recommendations and encourage the incorporation of patient preferences through the use of shared-decision making. Evidence from randomized-controlled trials are scarce and we still have to satisfy with observational studies. Furthermore, we still do not know how HT should cooperate, what goals are desired and most importantly, how HT decisions affect long-term outcomes and patient’s satisfaction. This review aimed to comprehensively discuss the available evidence establishing the role of HT for providing optimal care for patients with CAD and VHD. We believe that the need for research to recognize the HT definition and range of its functioning is an important issue for further exploration. Improved techniques of interventional cardiology, minimally-invasive surgeries and new drugs determine future perspectives of HT conceptualization, but also add new issues to the complexity of HT cooperation. Regardless of which direction HT has evolved, its concept should be continued and refined to improve healthcare standards.