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

Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (TASQ): Validation in Polish Patients with Aortic Stenosis

Background/Objectives: Quality of life (QoL) is recognized as a clinically significant outcome measure among patients with aortic stenosis (AS). However, there is no validated, AS-specific questionnaire available in Poland for assessing the QoL in AS patients. The aim of the study was to determine the psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (the TASQ). Methods: The study involved 113 patients with severe AS (including 59 women), aged 74 to 82 years [mean age 77 years], hospitalized at the department of cardiology in 2024. The standardized questionnaires were used to assess the level of QoL, the TASQ, and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (the MLHFQ). Results: The mean QoL level assessed by the TASQ was 60.72 ± 22.82. The Cronbach's alpha for the entire TASQ was 0.919, for the emotional impact subscale 0.873, and for the physical limitation subscale 0.861. Satisfactory values of fit measures were obtained for a five-factor structure (RMSEA < 0.01; CFI > 0.99). The loadings of each item were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The MLHFQ score correlated significantly (p < 0.001) and positively (r > 0) with the score on the scales of physical symptoms (r = 0.479), physical limitations (r = 0.662), social limitations (r = 0.597), emotional impact (r = 0.638), and overall QoL (r = 0.712). Conclusions: Patients with severe AS exhibit low QoL. The TASQ has very good psychometric properties and can be used to assess the QoL in the population of Polish patients with AS.

Effectiveness of an online patient education video for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Anxiety and gaps in medical knowledge have been shown to adversely affect treatment decisions amongst patients and their next-of-kin (NOK).1-3 In a busy clinical setting, physicians may find it time-consuming and challenging to address all aspects of a complex procedure, like transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS). We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of an online patient education video in improving patient and NOKs’ knowledge and reducing their anxiety for TAVI.

Medical graphics to improve patient understanding and anxiety in elderly and cognitively impaired patients scheduled for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)

BACKGROUND

Anxiety and limited patient comprehension may pose significant barriers when informing elderly patients about complex procedures such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the utility of medical graphics to improve the patient informed consent (IC) before TAVI.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized dual center study, 301 patients were assigned to a patient brochure containing medical graphics (Comic group, n = 153) or sham information (Control group, n = 148) on top of usual IC. Primary outcomes were patient understanding of central IC-related aspects and periprocedural anxiety assessed by the validated Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), both analyzed by cognitive status according to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).

RESULTS

Patient understanding was significantly higher in the Comic group [mean number of correct answers 12.8 (SD 1.2) vs. 11.3 (1.8); mean difference 1.5 (95% CI 1.2-1.8); p < 0.001]. This effect was more pronounced in the presence of cognitive dysfunction (MoCA < 26) [12.6 (1.2) in the Comic vs. 10.9 (1.6) in the Control group; mean difference 1.8 (1.4-2.2), p < 0.001]. Mean STAI score declined by 5.7 (95% CI 5.1-6.3; p < 0.001) in the Comic and 0.8 points (0.2-1.4; p = 0.015) in the Control group. Finally, mean STAI score decreased in the Comic group by 4.7 (3.8-5.6) in cognitively impaired patients and by 6.6 (95% CI 5.8 to 7.5) in patients with normal cognitive function (p < 0.001 each).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results prove beneficial effects for using medical graphics to inform elderly patients about TAVI by improving patient understanding and reducing periprocedural anxiety (DRKS00021661; 23/Oct/2020).

Outcomes of Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Younger Patients in the Low-Risk Era

Importance

Guidelines advise heart team assessment for all patients with aortic stenosis, with surgical aortic valve replacement recommended for patients younger than 65 years or with a life expectancy greater than 20 years. If bioprosthetic valves are selected, repeat procedures may be needed given limited durability of tissue valves; however, younger patients with aortic stenosis may have major comorbidities that can limit life expectancy, impacting decision-making.

Objective

To characterize patients younger than 65 years who received transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and compare their outcomes with patients aged 65 to 80 years.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective registry-based analysis used data on 139 695 patients from the Society for Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry, inclusive of patients 80 years and younger undergoing TAVR from August 2019 to September 2023.

Intervention

Balloon-expandable valve (BEV) TAVR with the SAPIEN family of devices.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Comorbidities (heart failure, coronary artery disease, dialysis, and others) and outcomes (death, stroke, and hospital readmission) of patients younger than 65 years compared to patients aged 65 to 80 years.

Results

In the years surveyed, 13 849 registry patients (5.7%) were younger than 65 years, 125 846 (52.1%) were aged 65 to 80 years, and 101 725 (42.1%) were 80 years and older. Among those younger than 65, the mean (SD) age was 59.7 (4.8) years, and 9068 of 13 849 patients (65.5%) were male. Among those aged 65 to 80 years, the mean (SD) age was 74.1 (4.2) years, and 77 817 of 125 843 patients (61.8%) were male. Those younger than 65 years were more likely to have a bicuspid aortic valve than those aged 65 to 80 years (3472/13 755 [25.2%] vs 9552/125 001 [7.6%], respectively; P < .001). They were more likely to have congestive heart failure, chronic lung disease, diabetes, immunocompromise, and end stage kidney disease receiving dialysis. Patients younger than 65 years had worse baseline quality of life (mean [SD] Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score, 47.7 [26.3] vs 52.9 [25.8], respectively; P < .001) and mean (SD) gait speed (5-meter walk test, 6.6 [5.8] seconds vs 7.0 [4.9] seconds, respectively; P < .001) than those aged 65 to 80 years. At 1 year, patients younger than 65 years had significantly higher readmission rates (2740 [28.2%] vs 23 178 [26.1%]; P < .001) and all-cause mortality (908 [9.9%] vs 6877 [8.2%]; P < .001) than older patients. When propensity matched, younger patients still had higher 1-year readmission rates (2732 [28.2%] vs 2589 [26.8%]; P < .03) with similar mortality to their older counterparts (905 [9.9%] vs 827 [10.1%]; P = .55).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among US patients receiving BEV TAVR for severe aortic stenosis in the low-surgical risk era, those younger than 65 years represent a small subset. Patients younger than 65 years had a high burden of comorbidities and incurred higher rates of death and readmission at 1 year compared to their older counterparts. These observations suggest that heart team decision-making regarding TAVR for most patients in this age group is clinically valid.

The perspectives of older adults related to transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An integrative review

BACKGROUND

Aortic Stenosis (AS) is a common syndrome in older adults wherein the narrowing of the aortic valve impedes blood flow, resulting in advanced heart failure.1 AS is associated with a high mortality rate (50 % at 6 months if left untreated), substantial symptom burden, and reduced quality of life.1-3 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved in 2012 as a less invasive alternative to surgical valve repair, offering a treatment for older frail patients. Although objective outcomes have been widely reported,4 the perspectives of older adults undergoing the TAVR process have never been synthesized.

OBJECTIVES

To contextualize the perspectives and experiences of older adults undergoing TAVR.

METHODS

An integrative review was conducted using Whittemore and Knafl's five-stage methodology.5 Four electronic databases were searched in April 2023. Articles were included if a qualitative methodology was used to assess the perceptions of older adults (>65 years old) undergoing or recovering from TAVR.

RESULTS

Out of 4619 articles screened, 12 articles met the criteria, representing 353 individuals from 10 countries. Relevant themes included the need for an individualized care plan, caregiver and family support, communication and education, persistent psychosocial and physical symptoms, and the unique recovery journey.

CONCLUSION

Older adults with AS undergoing TAVR generally perceive their procedure positively. Improved interdisciplinary and holistic management, open communication, symptom assessment, support, and education is needed.

Patient decision aids for aortic stenosis and chronic coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Shared decision-making is recommended for patients considering treatment options for severe aortic stenosis (AS) and chronic coronary artery disease (CAD). This review aims to systematically identify and assess patient decision aids (PtDAs) for chronic CAD and AS and evaluate the international evidence on their effectiveness for improving the quality of decision-making.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Five databases (Cochrane, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycInfo), clinical trial registers, and 30 PtDA repositories/websites were searched from 2006 to March 2023. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessments were completed independently by multiple reviewers. Meta-analyses were conducted using Stata statistical software. Eleven AS and 10 CAD PtDAs were identified; seven were less than 5 years old. Over half of the PtDAs were web based and the remainder paper based. One AS and two CAD PtDAs fully/partially achieved international PtDA quality criteria. Ten studies were included in the review; four reported on the development/evaluation of AS PtDAs and six on CAD PtDAs. Most studies were conducted in the USA with White, well-educated, English-speaking participants. No studies fulfilled all quality criteria for reporting PtDA development and evaluation. Meta-analyses found that PtDAs significantly increased patient knowledge compared with 'usual care' (mean difference: 0.620; 95% confidence interval 0.396-0.845, P < 0.001) but did not change decisional conflict.

CONCLUSION

Patients who use PtDAs when considering treatments for AS or chronic CAD are likely to be better informed than those who do not. Existing PtDAs may not meet the needs of people with low health literacy levels as they are rarely involved in their development.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42021264700.

JACC: Advances Expert Panel Perspective: Shared Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Team-Based Cardiovascular Care

Shared decision-making (SDM) and multidisciplinary team-based care delivery are recommended across several cardiology clinical practice guidelines. However, evidence for benefit and guidance on implementation are limited. Informed consent, the use of patient decision aids, or the documentation of these elements for governmental or societal agencies may be conflated as SDM. SDM is a bidirectional exchange between experts: patients are the experts on their goals, values, and preferences, and clinicians provide their expertise on clinical factors. In this Expert Panel perspective, we review the current state of SDM in team-based cardiovascular care and propose best practice recommendations for multidisciplinary team implementation of SDM.

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.

Implementing Shared Decision-Making for Multiple Sclerosis: The MS-SUPPORT Tool

BACKGROUND

Disease modifying therapies (DMTs) offer opportunities to improve the course of multiple sclerosis (MS), but decisions about treatment are difficult. People with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) want more involvement in decisions about DMTs, but new approaches are needed to support shared decision-making (SDM) because of the number of treatment options and the range of outcomes affected by treatment. We designed a patient-centered tool, MS-SUPPORT, to facilitate SDM for pwMS. We sought to evaluate the feasibility and impact of MS-SUPPORT on decisions about disease modifying treatments (DMTs), SDM processes, and quality-of-life.

METHODS

This multisite randomized controlled trial compared the SDM intervention (MS-SUPPORT) to control (usual care) over a 12-month period. English-speaking adults with relapsing MS were eligible if they had an upcoming MS appointment and an email address. To evaluate clinician perspectives, participants' MS clinicians were invited to participate. Patients were referred between November 11, 2019 and October 23, 2020 by their MS clinician or a patient advocacy organization (the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America). MS-SUPPORT is an online, interactive, evidence-based decision aid that was co-created with pwMS. It clarifies patient treatment goals and values and provides tailored information about MS, DMTs, and adherence. Viewed by patients before their clinic appointment, MS-SUPPORT generates a personalized summary of the patient's treatment goals and preferences, adherence, DMT use, and clinical situation to share with their MS clinician. Outcomes (DMT utilization, adherence, quality-of-life, and SDM) were assessed at enrollment, post-MS-SUPPORT, post-appointment, and quarterly for 1 year.

RESULTS

Participants included 501 adults with MS from across the USA (84.6% female, 83% white) and 34 of their MS clinicians (47% neurologists, 41% Nurse Practitioners, 12% Physician Assistants). Among the 203 patients who completed MS-SUPPORT, most (88.2%) reported they would recommend it to others and that it helped them talk to their doctor (85.2%), understand their options (82.3%) and the importance of taking DMTs as prescribed (82.3%). Among non-users of DMTs at baseline, the probability ratio of current DMT use consistently trended higher over one-year follow-up in the MS-SUPPORT group (1.30 [0.86-1.96]), as did the cumulative probability of starting a DMT within 6-months, with shorter time-to-start (46 vs 90 days, p=0.24). Among the 222 responses from 34 participating clinicians, more clinicians in the MS-SUPPORT group (vs control) trended towards recommending their patient start a DMT (9 of 108 (8%) vs 5 of 109 (5%), respectively, p=0.26). Adherence (no missed doses) to daily-dosed DMTs was higher in the MS-SUPPORT group (81.25% vs 56.41%, p=.026). Fewer patients forgot their doses (p=.046). The MS-SUPPORT group (vs control) reported 1.7 fewer days/month of poor mental health (p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

MS-SUPPORT was strongly endorsed by patients and is feasible to use in clinical settings. MS-SUPPORT increased the short-term probability of taking and adhering to a DMT, and improved long-term mental health. Study limitations include selection bias, response bias, social desirability bias, and recall bias. Exploring approaches to reinforcement and monitoring its implementation in real-world settings should provide further insights into the value and utility of this new SDM tool.

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.