PURPOSE: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are recommended for patients with heart failure and/or ventricular arrhythmias at risk of sudden cardiac death. Guidelines for ICD implantation are derived from robust clinical data. However, critical factors which might influence treatment decisions include patient preferences. We set out to determine how clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) incorporate the patient perspective into supporting decision making about ICDs. METHODS: CPGs on ICD implantation were purposively selected from national and professional bodies in Europe, North America and Australasia. CPGs were then appraised according to three key domains of shared decision making: (a) informing patients about the risks, benefits and consequences known to be important to patients; (b) personalising risks and benefits and (c) involvement of patient (plus family/significant others if desired) in decision making. RESULTS: Appraisal of six current CPGs found major deficiencies or inconsistencies in guidance. CPGs tended to focus on evidence of device effectiveness, with sparse consideration of other outcomes important to patients such as impacts on quality of life and psychosocial well-being. Little reference was made to involvement of the patient in decision making. CONCLUSIONS: This suggests that embedding shared decision in CPGs will improve the patient-centeredness of ICD treatment by enabling patients to make informed, value-based decisions. Specific recommendations for CPG development include the need for signposting to preference sensitive decision points as well as inclusion of a broader range of outcomes which are known to be important to patients when deciding whether or not to have a device fitted.
PURPOSE: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are recommended for patients with heart failure and/or ventricular arrhythmias at risk of sudden cardiac death. Guidelines for ICD implantation are derived from robust clinical data. However, critical factors which might influence treatment decisions include patient preferences. We set out to determine how clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) incorporate the patient perspective into supporting decision making about ICDs. METHODS: CPGs on ICD implantation were purposively selected from national and professional bodies in Europe, North America and Australasia. CPGs were then appraised according to three key domains of shared decision making: (a) informing patients about the risks, benefits and consequences known to be important to patients; (b) personalising risks and benefits and (c) involvement of patient (plus family/significant others if desired) in decision making. RESULTS: Appraisal of six current CPGs found major deficiencies or inconsistencies in guidance. CPGs tended to focus on evidence of device effectiveness, with sparse consideration of other outcomes important to patients such as impacts on quality of life and psychosocial well-being. Little reference was made to involvement of the patient in decision making. CONCLUSIONS: This suggests that embedding shared decision in CPGs will improve the patient-centeredness of ICD treatment by enabling patients to make informed, value-based decisions. Specific recommendations for CPG development include the need for signposting to preference sensitive decision points as well as inclusion of a broader range of outcomes which are known to be important to patients when deciding whether or not to have a device fitted.
Authors: Anthony P Redhead; Douglas Turkington; Sanjay Rao; Margaret M Tynan; John P Bourke Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Trudy van der Weijden; France Légaré; Antoine Boivin; Jako S Burgers; Haske van Veenendaal; Anne M Stiggelbout; Marjan Faber; Glyn Elwyn Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Charlotte Gry Harmsen; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen; Pia Veldt Larsen; Jørgen Nexøe; Henrik Støvring; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Jesper Bo Nielsen; Adrian Edwards; Dorte Ejg Jarbøl Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: P M Kane; F E M Murtagh; K Ryan; N G Mahon; B McAdam; R McQuillan; C Ellis-Smith; C Tracey; C Howley; C Raleigh; G O'Gara; I J Higginson; B A Daveson Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: Jayden Blackwood; Melissa J Armstrong; Corinna Schaefer; Ian D Graham; Loes Knaapen; Sharon E Straus; Robin Urquhart; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-05-24 Impact factor: 2.655