Targeted Consent for Research on Standard of Care Interventions in the Emergency Setting

OBJECTIVES

There has been significant debate over what consent process, if any, should be used for clinical trials that compare two or more interventions within the standard of care. Some claim that all clinical trials should obtain in-depth research consent because they use subjects to obtain data for the benefit of future patients. Others argue that clinical trials that are limited to interventions within the standard of care do not need to obtain research consent at all. Settling this debate is especially challenging in the emergency setting. The potential for significant morbidity and mortality provides a strong reason to obtain research consent for standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. Yet, the emergency setting also introduces significant barriers to traditional in-depth research consent. The present article considers to what extent a targeted consent process can resolve these tensions.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We first identified the ethical goals that are promoted by obtaining consent for standard-of-care research and the barriers to obtaining consent that arise in the emergency setting. We then evaluated whether, despite the barriers, it is possible to develop a targeted consent process that promotes the goals for consent in the context of standard-of-care trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted consent offers an ethically appropriate way to obtain consent for many standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. For studies subject to U.S. regulations, and those subject to other regulations that include similar consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure and written form provide a way to satisfy research regulations without blocking valuable studies. For trials that qualify for a waiver of the consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure is preferable to waiving consent, provided a slight delay is consistent with appropriate care, and there is a capacitated patient or surrogate available.

Causes and temporal trends in procedural deaths after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

The causes of procedural deaths after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have been scarcely detailed.

AIMS

To assess these causes and their temporal trends since the beginning of the TAVI era.

METHODS

From October 2006 to April 2014, 601 consecutive high-risk/inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent TAVI using the Edwards SAPIEN or SAPIEN XT or the Medtronic CoreValve. The transfemoral route was the default approach; the transapical or left subclavian approaches were alternative options. Patients were divided into three tertiles according to the date of the procedure.

RESULTS

Procedural death occurred in 45 patients (7.5%), with a median±standard deviation age of 83±7 years; 23 were men (51%) and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 26±16%. The main cause of death was heart failure (n=19, 42%), followed by cardiac rupture (n=12, 27%), intensive care complications (n=9, 20%) and vascular complications (n=5, 11%). The mortality rate was higher after transapical than transfemoral TAVI (17% vs. 5%; P<0.001). The mortality rate decreased over time (11.9% in the first tertile, 6.0% in the second and 4.5% in the third [P=0.007]), driven by a reduction in heart failure-related deaths (6.5% in the first tertile vs. 1.5% in the third; P=0.011). Vascular complication-related deaths disappeared in the third tertile. However, there was no decrease in deaths related to cardiac ruptures and intensive care complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The procedural mortality rate of TAVI decreased over time, driven by the decrease in heart failure-related deaths. However, efforts should continue to prevent cardiac ruptures and improve the outcomes of patients requiring intensive care after TAVI.