Does the Use of a Decision Aid Improve Decision Making in Prosthetic Heart Valve Selection? A Multicenter Randomized Trial

Informed Consent and Shared Decision-Making in Modern Medicine: Case-Based Approach, Current Gaps and Practical Proposal

Advances in personalized medicine and Systems Biology have introduced probabilistic models and error discovery to cardiovascular care, aiding disease prevention and procedural planning. However, clinical application faces cultural, technical, and methodological hurdles. Patient autonomy remains essential, with shared decision-making (SDM) gaining importance in managing complex cardiovascular treatment options. Effective SDM relies on collaboration between providers and patients, guided by P5 Medicine principles, which combine psycho-cognitive considerations with predictive, personalized, preventive, and participatory care. Here we propose a 3-step methodological proposal for implementing SDM and enhancing consent acquisition in cardiovascular care. The approach emphasizes personalized patient engagement and the need for clear, comprehensive consent processes. It identifies and addresses significant gaps in current practices, including the complexity of consent language, information dispersion, and the specific needs of vulnerable populations. Issues of Medical Responsibility and/or Liability may raise in the case of absence of consent acquisition or invalid consent due to insufficient/incorrect information. The International Guidelines on Medico-Legal Methods of Ascertainment and Evaluation Criteria are reported. In conclusion, the paper proposes practical solutions, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance decision-making and patient counseling, and strategies to ensure that consent processes are both thorough and legally sound and respectful to the individual's autonomy.

Effectiveness of computerised decision aids for patients with chronic diseases in shared decision-making: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To synthesise the composition and effectiveness of computer-based patient decision aid (PDAs) in interventions for patients with chronic diseases.

DESIGN

A systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

Five databases were searched, and only randomised controlled trials (RCTs)were included. This review was conducted with the PRISMA guidelines. The JBI Appraisal Tools for randomised trials were used to assess the risk of bias. We used the random-effects model to conduct meta-analyses. Evidence from RCTs was synthesised using standardised mean differences or mean differences. The GRADE system was employed to assess the certainty of evidence and recommendations. This study was registered on PROSPERO (number: CRD42022369340).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published before October 2022.

RESULTS

The review included 22 studies, and most computer-based PDAs reported information on the disease, treatment options, pros and cons and risk comparison and value clarification. The use of computer-based PDAs showed a significant effect on decision conflict and knowledge, but not on decision regret, satisfaction, self-efficacy, anxiety and quality of life. The overall GRADE certainty of evidence was low.

CONCLUSION

Although the quality of evidence was low, however, using computer-based PDAs could reduce decision conflict and enhance knowledge when making medical decisions. More research is needed to support the contention above.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Computer-based PDAs could assist health-care providers and patients in the shared decision-making process and improving the quality of decision-making.

REPORTING METHOD

This study adhered to PRISMA guidelines. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION.

Designing a decision aid for cancer prevention: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Australian guidelines recommend people aged 50-70 years old consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The aim was to design sex-specific decision aids (DAs) with clinician and consumer input, including expected frequency trees (EFTs) to communicate the risks and benefits of taking aspirin.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians. Focus groups were conducted with consumers. The interview schedules covered ease of comprehension, design, potential effects on decision-making, and approaches to implementation of the DAs. Thematic analysis was employed; independent coding by 2 researchers was inductive. Themes were developed through consensus between authors.

RESULTS

Sixty-four clinicians were interviewed over 6 months in 2019. Twelve consumers aged 50-70 years participated in two focus groups in February and March 2020. The clinicians agreed that the EFTs would be helpful to facilitate a discussion with patients but suggested including an additional estimate of the effects of aspirin on all-cause mortality. The consumers felt favourable about the DAs and suggested changes to the design and wording to ease comprehension.

CONCLUSION

DAs were designed to communicate the risks and benefits of low-dose aspirin for disease prevention. The DAs are currently being trialled in general practice to determine their impact on informed decision-making and aspirin uptake.

An interactive, online decision aid assessing patient goals and preferences for treatment of aortic stenosis to support physician-led shared decision-making: Early feasibility pilot study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend shared decision making when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis but implementation has lagged. We assessed the feasibility and impact of a novel decision aid for severe aortic stenosis at point-of-care.

METHODS

This prospective multi-site pilot cohort study included adults with severe aortic stenosis and their clinicians. Patients were referred by their heart team when scheduled to discuss treatment options. Outcomes included shared decision-making processes, communication quality, decision-making confidence, decisional conflict, knowledge, stage of decision making, decision quality, and perceptions of the tool. Patients were assessed at baseline (T0), after using the intervention (T1), and after the clinical encounter (T2); clinicians were assessed at T2. Before the encounter, patients reviewed the intervention, Aortic Valve Improved Treatment Approaches (AVITA), an interactive, online decision aid. AVITA presents options, frames decisions, clarifies patient goals and values, and generates a summary to use with clinicians during the encounter.

RESULTS

30 patients (9 women [30.0%]; mean [SD] age 70.4 years [11.0]) and 14 clinicians (4 women [28.6%], 7 cardiothoracic surgeons [50%]) comprised 28 clinical encounters Most patients [85.7%] and clinicians [84.6%] endorsed AVITA. Patients reported AVITA easy to use [89.3%] and helped them choose treatment [95.5%]. Clinicians reported the AVITA summary helped them understand their patients' values [80.8%] and make values-aligned recommendations [61.5%]. Patient knowledge significantly improved at T1 and T2 (p = 0.004). Decisional conflict, decision-making stage, and decision quality improved at T2 (p = 0.0001, 0.0005, and 0.083, respectively). Most patients [60%] changed treatment preference between T0 and T2. Initial treatment preferences were associated with low knowledge, high decisional conflict, and poor decision quality; final preferences were associated with high knowledge, low conflict, and high quality.

CONCLUSIONS

AVITA was endorsed by patients and clinicians, easy to use, improved shared decision-making quality and helped patients and clinicians arrive at a treatment that reflected patients' values.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial ID: NCT04755426, Clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Building and Optimizing the Interdisciplinary Heart Team

A multidisciplinary care team model, or Heart Team approach, has become a central tenet of cardiovascular care. Though initially applied to the management of heart transplantation and subsequently complex coronary artery disease, the Heart Team is now utilized broadly across cardiovascular medicine, including in the treatment of valvular disease, pulmonary embolism, cardiogenic shock, high-risk pregnancies in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, and adult congenital heart disease. The Heart Team model improves interdisciplinary collaboration among specialties, adherence to societal guidelines, and shared decision-making with patients and families. In this review, we highlight the development and rationale supporting the Heart Team model, address the challenges of implementing a multidisciplinary care team, and discuss the optimal methods to continue to build, optimize, and implement this approach.

Shared decision making and advance care planning: a systematic literature review and novel decision-making model

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Shared decision making (SDM) and advance care planning (ACP) are important evidence and ethics based concepts that can be translated in communication tools to aid the treatment decision-making process. Although both have been recommended in the care of patients with risks of complications, they have not yet been described as two components of one single process. In this paper we aim to (1) assess how SDM and ACP is being applied, choosing patients with aortic stenosis with high and moderate treatment complication risks such as bleeding or stroke as an example, and (2) propose a model to best combine the two concepts and integrate them in the care process.

METHODS

In order to assess how SDM and ACP is applied in usual care, we have performed a systematic literature review. The included studies have been analysed by means of thematic analysis as well as abductive reasoning to determine which SDM and ACP steps are applied as well as to propose a model of combining the two concepts into one process.

RESULTS

The search in Medline, Cinahl, Embase, Scopus, Web of science, Psychinfo and Cochrane revealed 15 studies. Eleven describe various steps of SDM while four studies discuss the documentation of goals of care. Based on the review results and existing evidence we propose a model that combines SDM and ACP in one process for a complete patient informed choice.

CONCLUSION

To be able to make informed choices about immediate and future care, patients should be engaged in both SDM and ACP decision-making processes. This allows for an iterative process in which each important decision-maker can share their expertise and concerns regarding the care planning and advance care planning. This would help to better structure and prioritize information while creating a trustful and respectful relationship between the participants. PROSPERO 2019. CRD42019124575.

Factors Influencing Participation in Shared Decision-Making Among Patients with Glaucoma in China: A Cross-Sectional Study

Purpose

To explore the level of participation in shared decision-making by patients with glaucoma and identify influencing factors, to subsequently provide references to promote shared decision-making in ophthalmology, and achieve patient-centered care.

Patients and Methods

A questionnaire was completed by 148 patients with glaucoma who had been admitted to a specialized ophthalmic hospital in China, between October 2021 and January 2022. The participants' responses to the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and a general information survey were analyzed to determine their level of participation in shared decision-making and influencing factors. Multiple linear regression was used to identify factors that influence shared decision-making at the time of clinical practice.

Results

The mean score of SDM-Q-9 was 71.73±21.27 (n=140). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that patients with negative attitudes towards participation in decision-making (P=0.023) and those who had rural insurance (P=0.017) had significantly lower SDM-Q-9 scores than those with positive attitudes and those with medical insurance. Patients who were more satisfied with their medical service had higher SDM-Q-9 scores (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Patients with glaucoma presented a high level of shared decision-making. Patients' attitudes towards participating in decision-making, the payment method of medical expenses, and the level of satisfaction with medical services are factors that influence their level of participation in shared decision-making.

Patient decision support interventions for candidates considering elective surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The increase in elective surgeries and varied postoperative patient outcomes has boosted the use of patient decision support interventions (PDSIs). However, evidence on the effectiveness of PDSIs are not updated. This systematic review aims to summarize the effects of PDSIs for surgical candidates considering elective surgeries and to identify their moderators with an emphasis on the type of targeted surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched eight electronic databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating PDSIs among elective surgical candidates. We documented the effects on invasive treatment choice, decision-making-related outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and healthcare resource use. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations were adopted to rate the risk of bias of individual trials and certainty of evidence, respectively. STATA 16 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight trials comprising 14 981 adults from 11 countries were included. Overall, PDSIs had no effect on invasive treatment choice (risk ratio=0.97; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.04), consultation time (mean difference=0.04 min; 95% CI: -0.17, 0.24), or patient-reported outcomes, but had a beneficial effect on decisional conflict (Hedges' g =-0.29; 95% CI: -0.41, -0.16), disease and treatment knowledge (Hedges' g =0.32; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.49), decision-making preparedness (Hedges' g =0.22; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.34), and decision quality (risk ratio=1.98; 95% CI: 1.15, 3.39). Treatment choice varied with surgery type and self-guided PDSIs had a greater effect on disease and treatment knowledge enhancement than clinician-delivered PDSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has demonstrated that PDSIs targeting individuals considering elective surgeries had benefited their decision-making by reducing decisional conflict and increasing disease and treatment knowledge, decision-making preparedness, and decision quality. These findings may be used to guide the development and evaluation of new PDSIs for elective surgical care.

A Decision Aid to Help Patients Make Informed Choices Between the Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass or Sleeve Gastrectomy

PURPOSE

In the Netherlands, patients can often choose between the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) as primary bariatric surgery. Yet, patients confronted with medical options may experience decisional conflict when their stakes are high and outcomes uncertain. This study aimed to assess if a decision aid helps patients make informed choices between two bariatric procedures by lowering the level of decisional conflict.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a single-center comparative cohort of patients who accessed a web-based decision aid (intervention group) and those who did not use the decision aid (control group) to help choose between two bariatric procedures additional to the standard provided care. The primary outcome was the level of decisional conflict in these patients using the decisional conflict scale (DCS). Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction with the provided information (BODY-QTM-satisfaction with information), preference of involvement in procedure selection, level of shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9 questionnaire), and patient knowledge.

RESULTS

The level of decisional conflict assessed with the decisional conflict scale (DCS) showed a significantly lower mean total DCS of 25.5 ± 11.5 for the intervention group vs. 29.1 ± 12.4 in the control group (p = 0.022). Both groups did not significantly differ in satisfaction regarding provided information, involvement in the selection procedure, shared decision-making, and patient knowledge.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the additional use of a decision aid significantly lowers the level of decisional conflict in patients awaiting bariatric surgery. However, the added value should be further investigated.

Application of patient decision aids in treatment selection of cardiac surgery patients: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The choice of treatment is an unavoidable challenge faced in the day to day medical decision making pertaining to patients with organic heart disease. As a professional discipline, cardiac surgery focuses on creating and using the most advanced evidence-based patient decision aids (PtDAs) to achieve high-quality decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the basic situation, influencing factors, and the outcome of indicators of PtDAs among cardiac surgery patients.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant reviews on the application of PtDAs among cardiac surgery patients. The methodological framework proposed by Arskey and O'Malley was used to guide the scoping review. The extracted data was analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively.

RESULTS

After dual, blinded screening of titles and abstracts, 12 articles were included in the review. 10 were quantitative studies, 1 was a mixed study, 1 was a qualitative study.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the burden of heart disease and the huge evidence base, the application of PtDAs in cardiac surgery is obviously insufficient. The published literature mainly provide information about the factors to be solved from the perspective of researchers, and also summarize obstacle factors. This is the basis for the application and construction of PtDAs in cardiac surgery patients.

What matters most to patients with severe aortic stenosis when choosing treatment? Framing the conversation for shared decision making

Background

Guidelines recommend including the patient’s values and preferences when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis (sAS). However, little is known about what matters most to patients as they develop treatment preferences. Our objective was to identify, prioritize, and organize patient-reported goals and features of treatment for sAS.

Methods

This multi-center mixed-methods study conducted structured focus groups using the nominal group technique to identify patients’ most important treatment goals and features. Patients separately rated and grouped those items using card sorting techniques. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses generated a cognitive map and clusters.

Results

51 adults with sAS and 3 caregivers with experience choosing treatment (age 36–92 years) were included. Participants were referred from multiple health centers across the U.S. and online. Eight nominal group meetings generated 32 unique treatment goals and 46 treatment features, which were grouped into 10 clusters of goals and 11 clusters of features. The most important clusters were: 1) trust in the healthcare team, 2) having good information about options, and 3) long-term outlook. Other clusters addressed the need for and urgency of treatment, being independent and active, overall health, quality of life, family and friends, recovery, homecare, and the process of decision-making.

Conclusions

These patient-reported items addressed the impact of the treatment decision on the lives of patients and their families from the time of decision-making through recovery, homecare, and beyond. Many attributes had not been previously reported for sAS. The goals and features that patients’ value, and the relative importance that they attach to them, differ from those reported in clinical trials and vary substantially from one individual to another. These findings are being used to design a shared decision-making tool to help patients and their clinicians choose a treatment that aligns with the patients’ priorities.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, Trial ID: NCT04755426, Trial URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426.

The Evolving Role of the Multidisciplinary Heart Team in Aortic Stenosis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has transformed the paradigm of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). With transcatheter aortic valve replacement now commercially approved for AS patients of all surgical risk, clinical decision-making regarding the initial mode of valve replacement (e.g. surgical versus transcatheter) and prosthesis type has become even more complex. The updated American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery guidelines on valvular heart disease offer a strong foundation from which to address the nuances of the treatment of AS; however, there remain several clinical scenarios for which evidence and thus definitive societal recommendations are lacking. As such, the heart team continues to play an invaluable role in the management of the AS patient by combining available scientific evidence, expertise across disciplines, and the patient's preferences to optimize individualized patient care and healthcare resource usage.

Balloon pulmonary angioplasty in inoperable chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension

Balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) is an emerging treatment for inoperable chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) or residual/recurrent pulmonary hypertension after pulmonary thromboendarterectomy. We report two patients with inoperable and severe CTEPH who were submitted to the BPA programme after optimised treatment with long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) and pulmonary vasodilator drugs, including prostacyclin analogues. They experienced a significant improvement in exercise capacity, oxygenation, right ventricular function and pulmonary haemodynamics. This improvement allowed withdrawal from LTOT and prostacyclin analogues therapies and, consequently, improved patients' quality of life and reduced future health-related costs. The reported clinical cases intend to highlight the effectiveness of BPA in patients with inoperable CTEPH for whom the only available therapy was, until recently, the pulmonary vasodilator drugs.

Shared decision making and patient reported outcomes among adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, medical expenditure panel survey 2006-2015

•

Question: Whether there is an association between shared decision making (SDM) and patient reported outcomes among individuals with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

•

Findings: In this retrospective cohort study among individuals with ASCVD, compared with poor SDM, optimal SDM was associated with increased utilization of guideline therapy for secondary prevention of ASCVD, lower frequency of ED visits, improved perception of health and healthcare related quality of life, without any significant influence on healthcare expenditure.

•

Meaning: The results from this study could provide useful evidence for expanding the use of SDM in patient-centered care among individuals with ASCVD.

Importance

Shared decision-making (SDM), one of the pillars of patient centered care is strongly encouraged and has been incorporated into the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) but the expansion of its use has been limited

Objective

To determine the association of SDM on patient-reported health status, measures of quality of care, healthcare resource utilization, and healthcare spending among US adults with ASCVD

Method

This is a retrospective cohort study in an ambulatory setting, utilizing the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) 2006–2015. Analysis completed in December 2020. Participants included were adults 18 years and over with a diagnosis of ASCVD. We used the average weighted response to self-administered questionnaire evaluating shared-decision-making process as the exposure variable in the regression model. Outcome measures included inpatient hospitalizations, Emergency Department (ED) visits, statin and aspirin use, self-perception of health, and healthcare expenditure

Results

When compared with individuals reporting poor SDM, those with optimal SDM were more likely to report statin and aspirin use [statin use, Odds Ratio (OR) 1.26 (95% CI, 1.09–1.46)], [aspirin use, 1.25 (1.07–1.45)], more likely to have a positive perception of their health and healthcare related quality of life, and were less likely to visit the ED [OR for ≥ 2 ED visits: 0.81 (0.67–0.99)]. There was no difference between groups in annual total or out of pocket healthcare expenditure

Conclusion

This study suggests that effective SDM is associated with better utilization of healthcare resources and patient reported health outcomes. We hope these results could provide useful evidence for expanding the use of SDM in patient-centered care among individuals with ASCVD

Aspirin, Statins, and Primary Prevention: Opportunities for Shared Decision Making in the Face of Uncertainty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The utility of aspirin and statins for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains ambiguous in older adults. Current guidelines and recent data are vague and inconclusive. This review seeks to summarize the landscape of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults and explore the role of shared decision making.

RECENT FINDINGS

Observational data suggest potential benefit of statin therapy in older adults. Aspirin is presently not recommended for primary prevention based on evidence from recent clinical trials. The implementation of shared decision making and decision aids in routine clinical practice remains challenging but may rise in coming years. Clinical trial data on the horizon may aid in solidifying guideline therapy for statin use. However, in the face of uncertainty, shared decision making between provider and patient should be utilized to determine whether pharmacotherapy may benefit older adults. Decision aids are an effective tool to guide this process.

Real-World Health-Economic Considerations Around Aortic-Valve Replacement in a Publicly Funded Health System

Herein, we describe the unique interplay among biomedical ethics, principles of distributive justice, and economic theory to highlight the role of health technology assessments to compare therapeutic options for aortic valve replacement. From the perspective of the Canadian health care system, transcatheter aortic-valve implantation is associated with higher costs but also higher incremental health benefits compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement. At current willingness to pay thresholds, transcatheter aortic-valve replacement is likely cost effective across the spectrum of risk, from inoperable patients to those at low surgical risk. However, we highlight the nuances within each subgroup of surgical risk that merit careful consideration by the heart team. Moreover, incorporation of patients and their preferences in decision-making is key. In particular, in young, low-risk patients, there remains uncertainty regarding the optimal treatment, with unique concerns around valve durability, selection of valve prosthesis, and consideration for special procedures such as the Ross procedure. Nonetheless, current research suggests that, universally, patients prefer a less invasive approach compared with a more invasive approach. Finally, we highlight that there remain critical issues around timeliness of access to care and unacceptable geographic inequities across Canada. Further research into alternative funding mechanisms and integrated cross-sector care pathways is necessary to address these issues.

Post hoc patient satisfaction with the choice of valve prosthesis for aortic valve replacement: results of a single-centre survey

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to examine post hoc patient satisfaction and the decision-making process of choosing a prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR).

METHODS

We surveyed 113 patients who were operated on for AVR at 60-70 years of age, including 74 patients with a mechanical valve (MECH) and 39 with a bioprosthesis (BIO). The study focused on quality of life and the decision pathway in relation to prosthesis choice and valve-related complications. Decisional conflict was defined as the post hoc uncertainty perceived by patients regarding their choice of prosthesis.

RESULTS

The survey was performed at a median of 5.2 (3.2-8.1) years after the AVR. Patients with a biological valve were older (BIO: 68.4 years [66.2-69.4] vs MECH: 63.9 [61.9-66.7]; P < 0.001). Global post hoc satisfaction with prosthesis choice was high in both groups (MECH: 95.9%; BIO: 100%), and 85.1% (MECH) and 92.3% (BIO) of them would repeat their choice. Conflict about their decision was equal (MECH: 30.3%; BIO: 32.6%) for different reasons: MECH patients experienced more anticoagulation-related inconvenience (25.9% vs 0%), fear of bleeding (31.1% vs 0%) and prosthesis noise (26.2% vs 0%), whereas more BIO patients feared prosthesis failure (39.7% vs 17.4%) or reoperation (43.5% vs 18.1%). Active involvement in the decision (odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.85; P = 0.029) and adequate information about the prosthesis (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.86; P = 0.020) decreased the risk of conflict about the decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Although 30% of the responders showed a decisional conflict related to prosthesis-specific interferences, global patient satisfaction with the prosthesis choice for AVR is excellent. Increasing the patient's involvement in the prosthesis choice through shared accountability and improved information is recommended to decrease the choice-related uncertainty.

Patient information portal for congenital aortic and pulmonary valve disease: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

In response to an increased need for patient information in congenital heart disease, we previously developed an online, evidence-based information portal for patients with congenital aortic and pulmonary valve disease. To assess its effectiveness, a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial was conducted.

METHODS

Adult patients and caregivers of paediatric patients with congenital aortic and/or pulmonary valve disease and/or tetralogy of Fallot who visited the outpatient clinic at any of the four participating centres in the Netherlands between 1 March 2016-1 July 2017 were prospectively included. The intervention (information portal) was introduced in the outpatient clinic according to a stepped-wedge randomised design. One month after outpatient clinic visit, each participant completed a questionnaire on disease-specific knowledge, anxiety, depression, mental quality of life, involvement and opinion/attitude concerning patient information and involvement.

RESULTS

343 participants were included (221 control, 122 intervention). Cardiac diagnosis (p=0.873), educational level (p=0.153) and sex (p=0.603) were comparable between the two groups. All outcomes were comparable between groups in the intention-to-treat analyses. However, only 51.6% of subjects in the intervention group (n=63) reported actually visiting the portal. Among these subjects (as-treated), disease-specific knowledge (p=0.041) and mental health (p=0.039) were significantly better than in control subjects, while other baseline and outcome variables were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Even after being invited by their cardiologists, only half of the participants actually visited the information portal. Only in those participants that actually visited the portal, knowledge of disease and mental health were significantly better. This underlines the importance of effective implementation of online evidence-based patient information portals in clinical practice.

Factors Associated With Decision Regret Among Patients With Diverticulitis in the Elective Setting

BACKGROUND

We aimed to identify decision process measures associated with patient decisional regret regarding the decision to pursue elective colectomy or observation for diverticulitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-center cross-sectional survey study. We included adult patients treated for diverticulitis between 2014 and 2019 and excluded patients who required urgent or emergent colectomy. The primary outcome was regret regarding the decision to pursue elective surgery or observation for diverticulitis, measured using the Decision Regret Scale. We used multivariable linear regression to examine hypothesized predictors of decision regret, including decisional conflict (Decision Conflict Scale and its subscales), shared decision-making, and decision role concordance.

RESULTS

Of 923 eligible patients, 133 were included in the analysis. Patients had a median of five episodes of diverticulitis (interquartile range 3-8), occurring a median of 2 y (interquartile range 1-3) before survey administration. Thirty-eight patients (29%) underwent elective surgery for diverticulitis. Decision regret (Decision Regret Scale score ≥25) was present in 42 patients (32%). After controlling for surgery, gender, health status, and years since treatment, decision regret was associated with decisional conflict and inversely associated with values clarity, decision role concordance, shared decision-making, and feeling informed, supported, and effective in decision-making (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly one-third of survey respondents experienced regret regarding the decision between elective surgery and observation for diverticulitis. Decision regret may be reduced through efforts to improve patient knowledge, values clarity, role concordance, and shared decision-making.

Identifying patient decisions and related information needs during decision making related to total knee arthroplasty

Aim: Research regarding decisions patients make about total knee arthroplasty, apart from having the procedure or not, are limited. Understanding patient decision making and related information needs is essential for shared decision making. Methods: Focus groups with an online community-based sample identified decisions about total knee arthroplasty beyond the decision to have the surgery itself. An online survey was used to determine relative importance of five major decisions and evaluate related information available. Results: Patients did not feel they have enough information to make important decisions of surgeon, device type, surgical approach, facility, or timing, for their total knee arthroplasty. Conclusion: Although further research is needed to generalize these findings, physicians should consider these questions during shared decision making with patients considering total knee arthroplasty.

Sex and gender considerations in implementation interventions to promote shared decision making: A secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) in healthcare is an approach in which health professionals support patients in making decisions based on best evidence and their values and preferences. Considering sex and gender in SDM research is necessary to produce precisely-targeted interventions, improve evidence quality and redress health inequities. A first step is correct use of terms. We therefore assessed sex and gender terminology in SDM intervention studies.

Materials and methods

We performed a secondary analysis of a Cochrane review of SDM interventions. We extracted study characteristics and their use of sex, gender or related terms (mention; number of categories). We assessed correct use of sex and gender terms using three criteria: “non-binary use”, “use of appropriate categories” and “non-interchangeable use of sex and gender”. We computed the proportion of studies that met all, any or no criteria, and explored associations between criteria met and study characteristics.

Results

Of 87 included studies, 58 (66.7%) mentioned sex and/or gender. The most mentioned related terms were “female” (60.9%) and “male” (59.8%). Of the 58 studies, authors used sex and gender as binary variables respectively in 36 (62%) and in 34 (58.6%) studies. No study met the criterion “non-binary use”. Authors used appropriate categories to describe sex and gender respectively in 28 (48.3%) and in 8 (13.8%) studies. Of the 83 (95.4%) studies in which sex and/or gender, and/or related terms were mentioned, authors used sex and gender non-interchangeably in 16 (19.3%). No study met all three criteria. Criteria met did not vary according to study characteristics (p>.05).

Conclusions

In SDM implementation studies, sex and gender terms and concepts are in a state of confusion. Our results suggest the urgency of adopting a standardized use of sex and gender terms and concepts before these considerations can be properly integrated into implementation research.

Optimizing Patient-Reported Experiences for Cardiovascular Disease: Current Landscape and Future Opportunities

Improving patient experience is a fundamental component of patient-centered care and one of the key strategies for improving health care quality, delivery, and outcomes. Several studies have described the association between improved patient experience and better health outcomes among individuals with cardiovascular disease. These findings are important given that cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States and globally. This review summarizes the findings on patient-reported health care experiences and discusses how optimizing these experiences may be a tool to improve health outcomes among individuals with cardiovascular disease.

Long-Term Outcome and Quality of Life After Biological Aortic Valve Replacement in Nonelderly Adults

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a standard of care in the treatment of aortic stenosis. The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term outcome and quality of life (QoL) after biological AVR in patients younger than 60 years of age.

METHODS

A total of 354 consecutive patients less than or equal to 60 years who underwent biological AVR at our institution (2005-2015) were included. The primary endpoint was actual freedom from AV reintervention, and secondary endpoints were actual freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) as well as mental and physical QoL.

RESULTS

Mean age was 52.3 ± 7.1 years and mean follow-up duration was 78.7 ± 38.1 months. Overall survival at 5, 10, and 12 years was 87.6%, 76.3%, and 63.5%, and actual freedom from AV reintervention was 85.5%, 67.8%, and 52.9%, respectively. Actual freedom from MACCE was 82.8%, 63.2%, and 50.4%, respectively. Cox regression revealed concomitant coronary artery disease (P < .001) and creatinine at baseline (P < .001) as independent predictors of survival, AV reintervention, and MACCE. Physical QoL was similar (P = .427) and mental QoL (P = .005) was significantly better compared with the published age-matched control subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Biological AVR in patients less than or equal to 60 years of age is associated with a significant occurrence of actual AV reintervention and MACCE at 10 to 12 years. Mental QoL after biological AVR was superior compared with healthy control subjects. The effect of the most recently developed bioprosthesis, specifically for younger patients, needs to be evaluated. Therefore, a shared decision-making process in prosthetic AV selection is mandatory in AVR patients less than or equal to 60 years of age.

Decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision making in chronic illnesses: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered approach in which clinicians and patients work together to find and choose the best course of action for each patient's particular situation. Six SDM key elements can be identified: situation diagnosis, choice awareness, option clarification, discussion of harms and benefits, deliberation of patient preferences, and making the decision. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) require that a decision aid (DA) support these key elements. Yet, the extent to which DAs support these six key SDM elements and how this relates to their impact remain unknown.

METHODS

We searched bibliographic databases (from inception until November 2017), reference lists of included studies, trial registries, and experts for randomized controlled trials of DAs in patients with cardiovascular, or chronic respiratory conditions or diabetes. Reviewers worked in duplicate and independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial, and DA characteristics, and evaluated the quality of each trial.

RESULTS

DAs most commonly clarified options (20 of 20; 100%) and discussed their harms and benefits (18 of 20; 90%; unclear in two DAs); all six elements were clearly supported in 4 DAs (20%). We found no association between the presence of these elements and SDM outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

DAs for selected chronic conditions are mostly designed to transfer information about options and their harms and benefits. The extent to which their support of SDM key elements relates to their impact on SDM outcomes could not be ascertained.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016050320 .

Clinical and quality of life outcomes after aortic valve replacement and aortic root surgery in adult patients <65 years old

Selecting the optimal surgical treatment strategy in patients below the age of 65 years (i.e., non-elderly patients) with aortic valve or aortic root disease remains challenging. The objective of the current study is to summarize contemporary research on clinical and quality of life outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) and aortic root surgery in non-elderly patients. Recent systematic reviews on clinical outcome after biological and mechanical AVR, the Ross procedure and aortic root surgery show that event occurrence is considerable after any type of AVR or aortic root surgery and-with the exception of the Ross procedure-survival is suboptimal. Although thromboembolism and bleeding events are more common after mechanical AVR and root surgery, these events are also considerably present after biological AVR, the Ross procedure and valve-sparing aortic root surgery (VSRR). Similarly, reoperation is more common after biological AVR, the Ross procedure and VSRR, but also occurs frequently after mechanical AVR and root replacement. Published evidence in AVR patients points to the direction of better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes with a biological solutions, while the HRQoL after aortic root surgery is limited and contradictory. This review illustrates that treatment for non-elderly aortic valve and aortic root disease patients needs to be tailored to the individual patient, considering both clinical and HRQoL outcomes as crucial factors to reach a treatment decision that best reflects the patient's values and goals in life.

Measuring what matters to the patient: health related quality of life after aortic valve and thoracic aortic surgery

With improved outcomes following cardiac surgery, health related quality of life (HRQoL) gains increasing importance for the better judgement of choosing the preferred treatment strategy in the individual patient. The physician perception of patient preferences can differ considerably from actual patient preferences, underlining the importance of gathering evidence of actual patient preferences before and quality of life after cardiac surgery. The objective of the current review is to provide an overview of current insights into the quality of life measurements after aortic valve and thoracic aortic surgery and to provide starting points for the application of HRQoL measurements toward the future. The amount and level of evidence on HRQoL outcomes after aortic valve and thoracic aortic surgery seems to be insufficient. Little has been investigated about the natural course of HRQoL after cardiac surgery, HRQoL outcomes between different surgical strategies, HRQoL outcomes between surgical patients and the general population, the different factors influencing HRQoL after cardiac surgery, and the effect of HRQoL on healthcare costs. More prospective studies should be performed, taking into account the knowledge gaps that need to be filled. Computerized adaptive testing methods through open source programs can be implemented to keep the burden to the patient as low as possible and catalyze the use of these tools. Our cardiovascular surgery community has the responsibility to deliberate how it can proceed to effectively fill in these knowledge gaps, and use this newfound knowledge to improve shared treatment decision making, patient outcomes, and ultimately optimize health care efficiency.

Patient and physician view on patient information and decision-making in congenital aortic and pulmonary valve surgery

Background

To assess the current state of patient information and decision-making in congenital aortic and pulmonary valve disease, we conducted a survey among patients, parents and physicians.

Methods

A questionnaire was sent by ground mail to 157 adults and 32 parents of children who previously underwent surgery for congenital aortic or pulmonary valve disease at 0-40 years of age between January 2005 and February 2014 at the Erasmus University Medical Center and to all paediatric and adult congenital cardiologists and congenital cardiac surgeons in the Netherlands (n=88).

Results

73 patients/parents (39% response rate, 62 adult patients, 11 parents of paediatric patients) and 35 physicians (40% response rate) responded. Median patient age at the time of surgery was 25.7 years. Basic disease-specific knowledge was adequate in 42% of patients/parents and numeracy was sufficient in 47%. Patients/parents reported that they rely heavily on their physicians for information and often experience difficulty in finding reliable information elsewhere. They lack information on psychosocial aspects of disease (29% of respondents) and risks and benefits of treatment options (26%). They feel less involved in decision-making than they would prefer to be (p=0.014). Decisional conflict at the time of surgery was experienced by 31% of patients/parents. If they had to do it again, 72% of patients/parents would want the same treatment. Quality of life is often impaired due to various valve-related anxieties and lifestyle changes. Physicians reported that they are unable to fully inform and sufficiently involve patients, due to limited patient/parent knowledge and understanding (56%) and limited time during consultations (32%). Patients/parents (98%) and physicians (97%) agree that they should have shared roles in decision-making.

Conclusion

The substantial shortcomings in our current practice of patient information and decision-making underline the need for innovative solutions, such as careful implementation of patient information tools and shared decision-making in the care path.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Pregnant women's views on how to promote the use of a decision aid for Down syndrome prenatal screening: a theory-informed qualitative study

Background

For pregnant women and their partners, the decision to undergo Down syndrome prenatal screening is difficult. Patient decision aids (PtDA) can help them make an informed decision. We aimed to identify behaviour change techniques (BCTs) that would be useful in an intervention to promote the use of a PtDA for Down syndrome prenatal screening, and to identify which of these BCTs pregnant women found relevant and acceptable.

Methods

Using the Behaviour Change Wheel and the Theoretical Domains Framework, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study. First, a group of experts from diverse professions, disciplines and backgrounds (eg. medicine, engineering, implementation science, community and public health, shared decision making) identified relevant BCTs. Then we recruited pregnant women consulting for prenatal care in three clinical sites: a family medicine group, a birthing centre (midwives) and a hospital obstetrics department in Quebec City, Canada. To be eligible, participants had to be at least 18 years old, having recently given birth or at least 16 weeks pregnant with a low-risk pregnancy, and have already decided about prenatal screening. We conducted three focus groups and asked questions about the relevance and acceptability of the BCTs. We analysed verbatim transcripts and reduced the BCTs to those the women found most relevant and acceptable.

Results

Our group of experts identified 25 relevant BCTs relating to information, support, consequences, others’ approval, learning, reward, environmental change and mode of delivery. Fifteen women participated in the study with a mean age of 27 years. Of these, 67% (n = 10) were pregnant for the first time, 20% (n = 3) had difficulty making the decision to take the test, and 73% had made the decision with their partner. Of the 25 BCTs identified using the Behaviour Change Wheel, the women found the following 10 to be most acceptable and relevant: goal setting (behaviour), goal setting (results), problem solving, action plan, social support (general), social support (practical), restructuring the physical environment, prompts/cues, credible sources and modelling or demonstration of the behaviour.

Conclusions

An intervention to promote PtDA use among pregnant women for Down syndrome prenatal screening should incorporate the 10 BCTs identified.

Effectiveness of an Intervention Supporting Shared Decision Making for Destination Therapy Left Ventricular Assist Device: The DECIDE-LVAD Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Shared decision making helps patients and clinicians elect therapies aligned with patients' values and preferences. This is particularly important for invasive therapies with considerable trade-offs.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of a shared decision support intervention for patients considering destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) placement.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From 2015 to 2017, a randomized, stepped-wedge trial was conducted in 6 US LVAD implanting centers including 248 patients being considered for DT LVAD. After randomly varying time in usual care, sites were transitioned to an intervention consisting of clinician education and use of DT LVAD pamphlet and video patient decision aids. Follow up occurred at 1 and 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Decision quality as measured by knowledge and values-choice concordance.

RESULTS

In total, 135 patients were enrolled during control and 113 during intervention periods. At enrollment, 59 (23.8%) participants were in intensive care, 60 (24.1%) were older than 70 years, 39 (15.7%) were women, 45 (18.1%) were racial/ethnic minorities, and 62 (25.0%) were college graduates. Patient knowledge (mean test performance) during the decision-making period improved from 59.5% to 64.9% in the control group vs 59.1% to 70.0% in the intervention group (adjusted difference of difference, 5.5%; P = .03). Stated values at 1 month (scale 1 = "do everything I can to live longer…" to 10 = "live with whatever time I have left…") were a mean of 2.37 in control and 3.33 in intervention (P = .03). Patient-reported treatment choice at 1 month favored LVAD more in the control group (than in the intervention group (47 [59.5%] vs 95 [91.3%], P < .001). Correlation between stated values and patient-reported treatment choice at 1 month was stronger in the intervention group than in the control group (difference in Kendall's τ, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.05-0.45); however, there was no improved correlation between stated values and actual treatment received by 6 months for the intervention compared with the control group (difference in Kendall's τ, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.25). The adjusted rate of LVAD implantation by 6 months was higher for those in the control group (79.9%) than those in the intervention group (53.9%, P = .008), with significant variation by site. There were no differences in decision conflict, decision regret, or preferred control.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A shared decision-making intervention for DT LVAD modestly improved patient decision quality as measured by patient knowledge and concordance between stated values and patient-reported treatment choice, but did not improve concordance between stated values and actual treatment received. The rate of implantation of LVADs was substantially lower in the intervention compared with the control group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02344576.

Developing a shared decision support framework for aortic root surgery in Marfan syndrome

OBJECTIVE

The study is an early phase of development of a decision support framework for people with Marfan syndrome who are anticipating prophylactic aortic root surgery. Implications of the timing and the nature of the operation chosen were previously elicited in focus groups. In this step, we explored the range of relative values placed by individuals on the implications of decisions made about surgery.

METHODS

Following the principles of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, eight questions in the general form 'How important is it to you …' were framed by a panel. Marfan people, families and specialist doctors answered online. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Worldwide, 142 responses were received including 25 specialist doctors. Respondents were 55% female and 46% had previous aortic root surgery. Overall, active lifestyle was more important to males (p=0.03). Patients placed more importance than doctors on not deferring surgery (p=0.04) and on avoidance of anticoagulation in the interests of childbearing (p=0.009). Qualitative analysis showed differing but cogently reasoned values that were sometimes polarised, and mainly driven by the wish to maintain a good quality of life and active lifestyle.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the cogency of these viewpoints, people anticipating root replacement surgery should have ample opportunity to express them and to have them acknowledged ahead of a consultation when they can then be fully explored in a mutually informed forum. If they differ from local medical practice, they can then be discussed in the process of reaching shared and individualised decisions.