Jon-David Schwalm1, Dawn Stacey, Dan Pericak, Madhu K Natarajan. 1. McMaster University-Hamilton Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Population Health Research Institute, Canada. schwalj@mcmaster.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vascular access options in coronary angiography can be considered a preference-sensitive decision, where the benefits/risks have different levels of significance, depending on the individual patient. For preference-sensitive healthcare options, patient decision aids (PtDA) significantly improve the process of decision-making. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of an evidence-based PtDA compared with usual care in patients eligible for radial and femoral artery access. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a single-center, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial with patients eligible for both femoral and radial access as per their treating physician. The PtDA was designed to guide patients to make an informed choice, consistent with their preferences and values. The primary outcome, decisional conflict, was assessed using the validated decisional conflict scale. One hundred fifty patients were randomized (vascular access PtDA=76 versus usual care=74). The intervention group had a significantly reduced decisional conflict scale compared with control (unadjusted 14.8 versus 19.5, P=0.04) and were significantly more knowledgeable regarding risks/benefits associated with each vascular access (mean knowledge score 3/5 (95% confidence interval, 2.6 to 3.3) versus 2/5 (95% confidence interval, 1.7 to 2.3, P<0.01). PtDA patients had better informed value congruence with their vascular access received (47.3% versus 25.7%, P<0.01). There were no significant differences in procedural success or safety between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: A vascular access PtDA for eligible patients undergoingcoronary angiogram procedures reduces decisional conflict and improves value congruence and the patients' knowledge of their healthcare options; however, a multicenter study, powered to confirm these benefits and evaluate differences in procedural success or complications, is required.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Vascular access options in coronary angiography can be considered a preference-sensitive decision, where the benefits/risks have different levels of significance, depending on the individual patient. For preference-sensitive healthcare options, patient decision aids (PtDA) significantly improve the process of decision-making. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of an evidence-based PtDA compared with usual care in patients eligible for radial and femoral artery access. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a single-center, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial with patients eligible for both femoral and radial access as per their treating physician. The PtDA was designed to guide patients to make an informed choice, consistent with their preferences and values. The primary outcome, decisional conflict, was assessed using the validated decisional conflict scale. One hundred fifty patients were randomized (vascular access PtDA=76 versus usual care=74). The intervention group had a significantly reduced decisional conflict scale compared with control (unadjusted 14.8 versus 19.5, P=0.04) and were significantly more knowledgeable regarding risks/benefits associated with each vascular access (mean knowledge score 3/5 (95% confidence interval, 2.6 to 3.3) versus 2/5 (95% confidence interval, 1.7 to 2.3, P<0.01). PtDA patients had better informed value congruence with their vascular access received (47.3% versus 25.7%, P<0.01). There were no significant differences in procedural success or safety between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: A vascular access PtDA for eligible patients undergoing coronary angiogram procedures reduces decisional conflict and improves value congruence and the patients' knowledge of their healthcare options; however, a multicenter study, powered to confirm these benefits and evaluate differences in procedural success or complications, is required.
Authors: Elizabeth G Liles; Michael C Leo; Amanda S Freed; Kathryn M Porter; Jamilyn M Zepp; Tia L Kauffman; Erin Keast; Carmit K McMullen; Inga Gruß; Barbara B Biesecker; Kristin R Muessig; Donna J Eubanks; Laura M Amendola; Michael O Dorschner; Bradley A Rolf; Gail P Jarvik; Katrina A B Goddard; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: Genet Med Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: France Légaré; Rhéda Adekpedjou; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Turcotte; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham; Anne Lyddiatt; Mary C Politi; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-07-19
Authors: Bryan Feenstra; Margaret L Lawson; Denise Harrison; Laura Boland; Dawn Stacey Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Marlies M Kok; Marieke G M Weernink; Clemens von Birgelen; Anneloes Fens; Liefke C van der Heijden; Janine A van Til Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Nicole E M Jaspers; Frank L J Visseren; Yolanda van der Graaf; Yvo M Smulders; Olga C Damman; Corline Brouwers; Guy E H M Rutten; Jannick A N Dorresteijn Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sandra L Carroll; Michael McGillion; Dawn Stacey; Jeff S Healey; Gina Browne; Heather M Arthur; Lehana Thabane Journal: Trials Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 2.279