Literature DB >> 22496116

The chest pain choice decision aid: a randomized trial.

Erik P Hess1, Meghan A Knoedler, Nilay D Shah, Jeffrey A Kline, Maggie Breslin, Megan E Branda, Laurie J Pencille, Brent R Asplin, David M Nestler, Annie T Sadosty, Ian G Stiell, Henry H Ting, Victor M Montori.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiac stress testing in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome is associated with increased false-positive test results, unnecessary downstream procedures, and increased cost. We judged it unlikely that patient preferences were driving the decision to obtain stress testing. METHODS AND
RESULTS: The Chest Pain Choice trial was a prospective randomized evaluation involving 204 patients who were randomized to a decision aid or usual care and were followed for 30 days. The decision aid included a 100-person pictograph depicting the pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome and available management options (observation unit admission and stress testing or 24-72 hours outpatient follow-up). The primary outcome was patient knowledge measured by an immediate postvisit survey. Additional outcomes included patient engagement in decision making and the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and cardiac stress testing. Compared with usual care patients (n=103), decision aid patients (n=101) had significantly greater knowledge (3.6 versus 3.0 questions correct; mean difference, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.34-1.0), were more engaged in decision making as indicated by higher OPTION (observing patient involvement) scores (26.6 versus 7.0; mean difference, 19.6; 95% CI, 1.6-21.6), and decided less frequently to be admitted to the observation unit for stress testing (58% versus 77%; absolute difference, 19%; 95% CI, 6%-31%). There were no major adverse cardiac events after discharge in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of a decision aid in patients with chest pain increased knowledge and engagement in decision making and decreased the rate of observation unit admission for stress testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22496116     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.964791

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes        ISSN: 1941-7713


  79 in total

1.  The 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda May 10, 2016, New Orleans, LA.

Authors:  Corita R Grudzen; Jana R Anderson; Christopher R Carpenter; Erik P Hess
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.451

2.  Patient selection for diagnostic coronary angiography and hospital-level percutaneous coronary intervention appropriateness: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

Authors:  Steven M Bradley; John A Spertus; Kevin F Kennedy; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Paul S Chan; Manesh R Patel; Chris L Bryson; David J Malenka; John S Rumsfeld
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  Chest pain triage in the ED: is CT coronary angiography the answer?

Authors:  Raymond J Gibbons
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  Patient-centered Outcomes Research in Emergency Care: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Kristin L Rising; Brendan G Carr; Erik P Hess; Zachary F Meisel; Megan L Ranney; Jody A Vogel
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 3.451

Review 5.  Chest pain triage: Current trends in the emergency departments in the United States.

Authors:  Matthew C DeLaney; Matthew Neth; Jared J Thomas
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 5.952

6.  Feedback to Patients About Patient-reported Outcomes Does Not Improve Empowerment or Satisfaction.

Authors:  Lisette Ackermans; Michiel G Hageman; A H Bos; Daniel Haverkamp; Vanessa A B Scholtes; Rudolf W Poolman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  The burden of acute heart failure on U.S. emergency departments.

Authors:  Alan B Storrow; Cathy A Jenkins; Wesley H Self; Pauline T Alexander; Tyler W Barrett; Jin H Han; Candace D McNaughton; Benjamin S Heavrin; Mihai Gheorghiade; Sean P Collins
Journal:  JACC Heart Fail       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 12.035

8.  Insights from a conference on implementing comparative effectiveness research through shared decision-making.

Authors:  Mary C Politi; Marla L Clayman; Angela Fagerlin; Jamie L Studts; Victor Montori
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.744

9.  The AFFORD clinical decision aid to identify emergency department patients with atrial fibrillation at low risk for 30-day adverse events.

Authors:  Tyler W Barrett; Alan B Storrow; Cathy A Jenkins; Robert L Abraham; Dandan Liu; Karen F Miller; Kelly M Moser; Stephan Russ; Dan M Roden; Frank E Harrell; Dawood Darbar
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 2.778

Review 10.  Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument.

Authors:  Nicolas Couët; Sophie Desroches; Hubert Robitaille; Hugues Vaillancourt; Annie Leblanc; Stéphane Turcotte; Glyn Elwyn; France Légaré
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-03-04       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.