OBJECTIVES: Determine if patients prefermultivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (mv-PCI) over coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for treatment of symptomatic multivessel coronary artery disease (mv-CAD) despite high 1-year risk. BACKGROUND: Patient risk perception and preference for CABG or mv-PCI to treat medically refractory mv-CAD are poorly understood. We hypothesize that patients prefer mv-PCI instead of CABG even when quoted high mv-PCI risk. METHODS:585 patients and 31 physicians were presented standardized questionnaires with a hypothetical scenario describing chest pain and medically refractory mv-CAD. CABG or mv-PCI was presented as treatment options. Risk scenarios included variable 1-year risks of death, stroke, and repeat procedures for mv-PCI and fixed risks for CABG. Participants indicated their preference of revascularization method based on the presented risks. We calculated the odds that patients or physicians would favor mv-PCI over CABG across a range of quoted risks of death, stroke, and repeat procedures. RESULTS: For nearly all quoted risks, patients preferred mv-PCI over CABG, even when the risk of death was double the risk with CABG or the risk of repeat procedures was more than three times that for CABG (P < 0.0001). Compared to patients, physicians chose mv-PCI less often than CABG as the risk of death and repeat procedures increased (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients favor mv-PCI over CABG to treat mv-CAD, even if 1-year risks of death and repeat procedures far exceed risk with CABG. Physicians are more influenced by actual risk and prefer mv-PCI less than patients despite similarly quoted 1-year risks.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Determine if patients prefer multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (mv-PCI) over coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for treatment of symptomatic multivessel coronary artery disease (mv-CAD) despite high 1-year risk. BACKGROUND:Patient risk perception and preference for CABG or mv-PCI to treat medically refractory mv-CAD are poorly understood. We hypothesize that patients prefer mv-PCI instead of CABG even when quoted high mv-PCI risk. METHODS: 585 patients and 31 physicians were presented standardized questionnaires with a hypothetical scenario describing chest pain and medically refractory mv-CAD. CABG or mv-PCI was presented as treatment options. Risk scenarios included variable 1-year risks of death, stroke, and repeat procedures for mv-PCI and fixed risks for CABG. Participants indicated their preference of revascularization method based on the presented risks. We calculated the odds that patients or physicians would favor mv-PCI over CABG across a range of quoted risks of death, stroke, and repeat procedures. RESULTS: For nearly all quoted risks, patients preferred mv-PCI over CABG, even when the risk of death was double the risk with CABG or the risk of repeat procedures was more than three times that for CABG (P < 0.0001). Compared to patients, physicians chose mv-PCI less often than CABG as the risk of death and repeat procedures increased (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). CONCLUSION:Patients favor mv-PCI over CABG to treat mv-CAD, even if 1-year risks of death and repeat procedures far exceed risk with CABG. Physicians are more influenced by actual risk and prefer mv-PCI less than patients despite similarly quoted 1-year risks.
Authors: Arie Pieter Kappetein; Ted E Feldman; Michael J Mack; Marie-Claude Morice; David R Holmes; Elisabeth Ståhle; Keith D Dawkins; Friedrich W Mohr; Patrick W Serruys; Antonio Colombo Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-06-22 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Davide Capodanno; Piera Capranzano; Maria Elena Di Salvo; Anna Caggegi; Davide Tomasello; Glauco Cincotta; Marco Miano; Martina Patané; Claudia Tamburino; Salvatore Tolaro; Leonardo Patané; Antonio Maria Calafiore; Corrado Tamburino Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Jeffrey W Moses; Martin B Leon; Jeffrey J Popma; Peter J Fitzgerald; David R Holmes; Charles O'Shaughnessy; Ronald P Caputo; Dean J Kereiakes; David O Williams; Paul S Teirstein; Judith L Jaeger; Richard E Kuntz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mohammed Qintar; Karin H Humphries; Julie E Park; Suzanne V Arnold; Yuanyuan Tang; Phillip Jones; Adam C Salisbury; Faraz Kureshi; Michael E Farkouh; Valentin Fuster; David J Cohen; John A Spertus Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Carlos Alberto da Silva Magliano; Andrea Libório Monteiro; Amanda Rebeca de Oliveira Rebelo; Claudia Cristina de Aguiar Pereira Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2018-12-24 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Anna Selva; Ivan Solà; Yuan Zhang; Hector Pardo-Hernandez; R Brian Haynes; Laura Martínez García; Tamara Navarro; Holger Schünemann; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Melissa C W Vaanholt; Marlies M Kok; Clemens von Birgelen; Marieke G M Weernink; Janine A van Til Journal: Health Expect Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 3.377