Benoit Lattuca1, Nicolas Barber-Chamoux2, Benjamin Alos3, Anis Sfaxi4, Aurélien Mulliez5, Noelie Miton2, Thomas Levasseur6, Clement Servoz7, François Derimay8, Olivier Hachet9, Pascal Motreff10, Damien Metz6, Olivier Lairez11, Nathan Mewton12, Loic Belle9, Mariama Akodad13, Thomas Mathivet14, Fiona Ecarnot15, Justine Pollet16, Nicolas Danchin17, Philippe-Gabriel Steg18, Yves Juillière19, Claire Bouleti20. 1. Department of Cardiology, Caremeau University Hospital, Nîmes, France. 2. Department of Cardiology, Gabriel Montpied University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 3. Department of Cardiology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Bichat Hospital, Paris, France. 4. Department of Cardiology, Hospital Lagny Marne-la-Vallee, Lagny-sur-Marne, France. 5. Department of Biostatistics, DRCI-CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Université d'Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 6. Department of Cardiology, Robert-Debré University Hospital, Reims, France. 7. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Rangueil, Toulouse, France. 8. Department of Cardiology, Louis Pradel University Hospital, INSERM U 1060, Lyon, France. 9. Department of Cardiology, Annecy Hospital, Annecy, France. 10. Department of Cardiology, Gabriel Montpied University Hospital; ISIT, CaVITI, CNRS (UMR-6284), Auvergne University, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 11. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Rangueil ; Cardiac Imaging Center, Toulouse University Hospital, University Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France. 12. Department of Clinical Research, Louis Pradel University Hospital, INSERM U 1407, Lyon, France. 13. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Montpellier, INSERM U1046, Montpellier, France. 14. Department of Cardiovascular Research, INSERM U970, Paris, France. 15. Department of Cardiology, EA3920, University Hospital of Besancon, France. 16. Department of Cardiovascular Research, French Society of Cardiology, Paris, France. 17. Department of Cardiology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France. 18. Department of Cardiology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Bichat University Hospital, DHU Fire, University Paris Diderot, INSERM U1148, Paris, France. 19. Department of Cardiology, Institut Lorrain du Cœur et des Vaisseaux, University Hospital of Nancy, University of Lorraine, Nancy, France. 20. Department of Cardiology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Bichat University Hospital, DHU Fire, University Paris Diderot, INSERM U1148, Paris, France. Electronic address: claire.bouleti@aphp.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Appropriate information about the benefits and risks of invasive procedures is crucial, but limited data is available in this field. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incremental value of a short video about coronary angiography compared with standard information, in terms of patient understanding, satisfaction and anxiety. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study included patients admitted for scheduled coronary angiography, who were randomized to receive either standard information or video information by watching a three-dimensional educational video. After information was delivered, patients were asked to complete a dedicated 16-point information questionnaire, as well as satisfaction and anxiety scales. RESULTS:From 21 September to 4 October 2015, 821 consecutive patients were randomized to receive either standard information (n=415) or standard information with an added educational video (n=406). The information score was higher in the video information group than in the standard group (11.8±2.8 vs 9.5±3.1; P<.001). This result was consistent across age and education level subgroups. Self-reported satisfaction was also higher in the video information group (8.4±1.9 vs. 7.7±2.3; P<.001), while anxiety level did not differ between groups. The variables associated with a higher information score were the use of the educational video, younger age, higher level of education, previous follow-up by a cardiologist, prior information about coronary angiography and previous coronary angiography. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with standard information, viewing a dedicated educational video improved patients' understanding and satisfaction before scheduled coronary angiography. These results are in favor of widespread use of this incremental information tool.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Appropriate information about the benefits and risks of invasive procedures is crucial, but limited data is available in this field. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incremental value of a short video about coronary angiography compared with standard information, in terms of patient understanding, satisfaction and anxiety. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study included patients admitted for scheduled coronary angiography, who were randomized to receive either standard information or video information by watching a three-dimensional educational video. After information was delivered, patients were asked to complete a dedicated 16-point information questionnaire, as well as satisfaction and anxiety scales. RESULTS: From 21 September to 4 October 2015, 821 consecutive patients were randomized to receive either standard information (n=415) or standard information with an added educational video (n=406). The information score was higher in the video information group than in the standard group (11.8±2.8 vs 9.5±3.1; P<.001). This result was consistent across age and education level subgroups. Self-reported satisfaction was also higher in the video information group (8.4±1.9 vs. 7.7±2.3; P<.001), while anxiety level did not differ between groups. The variables associated with a higher information score were the use of the educational video, younger age, higher level of education, previous follow-up by a cardiologist, prior information about coronary angiography and previous coronary angiography. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with standard information, viewing a dedicated educational video improved patients' understanding and satisfaction before scheduled coronary angiography. These results are in favor of widespread use of this incremental information tool.
Authors: Ana Monteiro Grilo; Ana Catarina Ferreira; Marta Pedro Ramos; Elisabete Carolino; Ana Filipa Pires; Lina Vieira Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-07-05
Authors: Johanna Glaser; Sarah Nouri; Alicia Fernandez; Rebecca L Sudore; Dean Schillinger; Michele Klein-Fedyshin; Yael Schenker Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Marta S Palmeirim; Amanda Ross; Brigit Obrist; Ulfat A Mohammed; Shaali M Ame; Said M Ali; Jennifer Keiser Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 2.652
Authors: David S Wald; Oliver Casey-Gillman; Katrina Comer; Josephine Sarah Mansell; Howie Teo; Kyriacos Mouyis; Matthew Kelham; Fiona Chan; Selda Ahmet; Max Sayers; Vincent McCaughan; Nito Polenio Journal: Heart Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 5.994