Literature DB >> 28228452

Does the Use of a Decision Aid Improve Decision Making in Prosthetic Heart Valve Selection? A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

Nelleke M Korteland1, Yunus Ahmed1, David R Koolbergen1, Marjan Brouwer1, Frederiek de Heer1, Jolanda Kluin1, Eline F Bruggemans1, Robert J M Klautz1, Anne M Stiggelbout1, Jeroen J J Bucx1, Jolien W Roos-Hesselink1, Peter Polak1, Thanasie Markou1, Inge van den Broek1, Rene Ligthart1, Ad J J C Bogers1, Johanna J M Takkenberg2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A Dutch online patient decision aid to support prosthetic heart valve selection was recently developed. A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted to assess whether use of the patient decision aid results in optimization of shared decision making in prosthetic heart valve selection. METHODS AND
RESULTS: In a 5-center randomized controlled trial, patients were allocated to receive either standard preoperative care (control group) or additional access to the patient decision aid (intervention group). Legally capable adult patients accepted for elective isolated or combined aortic and mitral valve replacement were included. Primary outcome was preoperative decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale); secondary outcomes included patient knowledge, involvement in valve selection, anxiety and depression, (valve-specific) quality of life, and regret. Out of 306 eligible patients, 155 were randomized (78 control and 77 intervention). Preoperative decisional conflict did not differ between the groups (34% versus 33%; P=0.834). Intervention patients felt better informed (median Decisional Conflict Scale informed subscore: 8 versus 17; P=0.046) and had a better knowledge of prosthetic valves (85% versus 68%; P=0.004). Intervention patients experienced less anxiety and depression (median Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score: 6 versus 9; P=0.015) and better mental well-being (mean Short Form Health Survey score: 54 versus 50; P=0.032). Three months postoperatively, valve-specific quality of life and regret did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: A patient decision aid to support shared decision making in prosthetic heart valve selection does not lower decisional conflict. It does result in more knowledgeable, better informed, and less anxious and depressed patients, with a better mental well-being. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.trialregister.nl. Unique identifier: NTR4350.
© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  anxiety; cardiovascular diseases; decision making; heart valves; randomized controlled trial

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28228452     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.003178

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


  17 in total

1.  The choice of heart valve prosthesis for aortic valve replacement in the young: about choices and consequences.

Authors:  Thierry Bove
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-05

2.  Decision Aids: The Role of the Patient in Perioperative Safety.

Authors:  Warren A Southerland; Luis E Tollinche; Fred E Shapiro
Journal:  Int Anesthesiol Clin       Date:  2019

Review 3.  Aspirin, Statins, and Primary Prevention: Opportunities for Shared Decision Making in the Face of Uncertainty.

Authors:  Amit Jhaveri; Rachel A Sibley; Erica S Spatz; John Dodson
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 2.931

4.  Post hoc patient satisfaction with the choice of valve prosthesis for aortic valve replacement: results of a single-centre survey.

Authors:  Laure Bryssinck; Siel De Vlieger; Katrien François; Thierry Bové
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2021-07-26

5.  Factors Associated With Decision Regret Among Patients With Diverticulitis in the Elective Setting.

Authors:  Jessica N Cohan; Brian Orleans; Federica S Brecha; Lyen C Huang; Angela Presson; Angela Fagerlin; Elissa M Ozanne
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 2.192

Review 6.  Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.

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

7.  Developing a shared decision support framework for aortic root surgery in Marfan syndrome.

Authors:  Tom Treasure; Annette King; Loreto Hidalgo Lemp; Tal Golesworthy; John Pepper; Johanna Jm Takkenberg
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 5.994

8.  Pregnant women's views on how to promote the use of a decision aid for Down syndrome prenatal screening: a theory-informed qualitative study.

Authors:  Titilayo Tatiana Agbadjé; Matthew Menear; Michèle Dugas; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi; Hubert Robitaille; Anik M C Giguère; François Rousseau; Brenda J Wilson; France Légaré
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-06-08       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Effectiveness of an Intervention Supporting Shared Decision Making for Destination Therapy Left Ventricular Assist Device: The DECIDE-LVAD Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Larry A Allen; Colleen K McIlvennan; Jocelyn S Thompson; Shannon M Dunlay; Shane J LaRue; Eldrin F Lewis; Chetan B Patel; Laura Blue; Diane L Fairclough; Erin C Leister; Russell E Glasgow; Joseph C Cleveland; Clifford Phillips; Vicie Baldridge; Mary Norine Walsh; Daniel D Matlock
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  Patient and physician view on patient information and decision-making in congenital aortic and pulmonary valve surgery.

Authors:  Jonathan R G Etnel; Willem A Helbing; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink; Regina The; Ad J J C Bogers; Johanna J M Takkenberg
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2018-11-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.