Christopher E Cox1, Douglas B White2, Catherine L Hough3, Derek M Jones1, Jeremy M Kahn2, Maren K Olsen4, Carmen L Lewis5, Laura C Hanson6, Shannon S Carson6. 1. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (C.E.C., D.M.J.). 2. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (D.B.W., J.M.K.). 3. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (C.L.H.). 4. Duke University and the Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care at the Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina (M.K.O.). 5. University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado (C.L.L.). 6. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (L.C.H., S.S.C.).
Abstract
Background: Treatment decisions commonly have to be made in intensive care units (ICUs). These decisions are difficult for surrogate decision makers and often lead to decisional conflict, psychological distress, and treatments misaligned with patient preferences. Objective: To determine whether a decision aid about prolonged mechanical ventilation improved prognostic concordance between surrogate decision makers and clinicians compared with a usual care control. Design: Multicenter, parallel, randomized, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01751061). Setting: 13 medical and surgical ICUs at 5 hospitals. Participants: Adult patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation and their surrogates, ICU physicians, and ICU nurses. Intervention: A Web-based decision aid provided personalized prognostic estimates, explained treatment options, and interactively clarified patient values to inform a family meeting. The control group received information according to usual care practices followed by a family meeting. Measurements: The primary outcome was improved concordance on 1-year survival estimates, measured with the clinician-surrogate concordance scale (range, 0 to 100 percentage points; higher scores indicate more discordance). Secondary and additional outcomes assessed the experiences of surrogates (psychological distress, decisional conflict, and quality of communication) and patients (length of stay and 6-month mortality). Outcomes assessors were blinded to group allocation. Results: The study enrolled 277 patients, 416 surrogates, and 427 clinicians. Concordance improvement did not differ between intervention and control groups (mean difference in score change from baseline, -1.7 percentage points [95% CI, -8.3 to 4.8 percentage points]; P = 0.60). Surrogates' postintervention estimates of patients' 1-year prognoses did not differ between intervention and control groups (median, 86.0% [interquartile range {IQR}, 50.0%] vs. 92.5% [IQR, 47.0%]; P = 0.23) and were substantially more optimistic than results of a validated prediction model (median, 56.0% [IQR, 43.0%]) and physician estimates (median, 50.0% [IQR, 55.5%]). Eighty-two intervention surrogates (43%) favored a treatment option that was more aggressive than their report of patient preferences. Although intervention surrogates had greater reduction in decisional conflict than control surrogates (mean difference in change from baseline, 0.4 points [CI, 0.0 to 0.7 points]; P = 0.041), other surrogate and patient outcomes did not differ. Limitation: Contamination among clinicians could have biased results toward the null hypothesis. Conclusion: A decision aid about prolonged mechanical ventilation did not improve prognostic concordance between clinicians and surrogates, reduce psychological distress among surrogates, or alter clinical outcomes. Decision support in acute care settings may require greater individualized attention for both the cognitive and affective challenges of decision making. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.
RCT Entities:
Background: Treatment decisions commonly have to be made in intensive care units (ICUs). These decisions are difficult for surrogate decision makers and often lead to decisional conflict, psychological distress, and treatments misaligned with patient preferences. Objective: To determine whether a decision aid about prolonged mechanical ventilation improved prognostic concordance between surrogate decision makers and clinicians compared with a usual care control. Design: Multicenter, parallel, randomized, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01751061). Setting: 13 medical and surgical ICUs at 5 hospitals. Participants: Adult patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation and their surrogates, ICU physicians, and ICU nurses. Intervention: A Web-based decision aid provided personalized prognostic estimates, explained treatment options, and interactively clarified patient values to inform a family meeting. The control group received information according to usual care practices followed by a family meeting. Measurements: The primary outcome was improved concordance on 1-year survival estimates, measured with the clinician-surrogate concordance scale (range, 0 to 100 percentage points; higher scores indicate more discordance). Secondary and additional outcomes assessed the experiences of surrogates (psychological distress, decisional conflict, and quality of communication) and patients (length of stay and 6-month mortality). Outcomes assessors were blinded to group allocation. Results: The study enrolled 277 patients, 416 surrogates, and 427 clinicians. Concordance improvement did not differ between intervention and control groups (mean difference in score change from baseline, -1.7 percentage points [95% CI, -8.3 to 4.8 percentage points]; P = 0.60). Surrogates' postintervention estimates of patients' 1-year prognoses did not differ between intervention and control groups (median, 86.0% [interquartile range {IQR}, 50.0%] vs. 92.5% [IQR, 47.0%]; P = 0.23) and were substantially more optimistic than results of a validated prediction model (median, 56.0% [IQR, 43.0%]) and physician estimates (median, 50.0% [IQR, 55.5%]). Eighty-two intervention surrogates (43%) favored a treatment option that was more aggressive than their report of patient preferences. Although intervention surrogates had greater reduction in decisional conflict than control surrogates (mean difference in change from baseline, 0.4 points [CI, 0.0 to 0.7 points]; P = 0.041), other surrogate and patient outcomes did not differ. Limitation: Contamination among clinicians could have biased results toward the null hypothesis. Conclusion: A decision aid about prolonged mechanical ventilation did not improve prognostic concordance between clinicians and surrogates, reduce psychological distress among surrogates, or alter clinical outcomes. Decision support in acute care settings may require greater individualized attention for both the cognitive and affective challenges of decision making. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.
Authors: Judy E Davidson; Rebecca A Aslakson; Ann C Long; Kathleen A Puntillo; Erin K Kross; Joanna Hart; Christopher E Cox; Hannah Wunsch; Mary A Wickline; Mark E Nunnally; Giora Netzer; Nancy Kentish-Barnes; Charles L Sprung; Christiane S Hartog; Maureen Coombs; Rik T Gerritsen; Ramona O Hopkins; Linda S Franck; Yoanna Skrobik; Alexander A Kon; Elizabeth A Scruth; Maurene A Harvey; Mithya Lewis-Newby; Douglas B White; Sandra M Swoboda; Colin R Cooke; Mitchell M Levy; Elie Azoulay; J Randall Curtis Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jared Chiarchiaro; Natalie C Ernecoff; Leslie P Scheunemann; Catherine L Hough; Shannon S Carson; Michael W Peterson; Wendy G Anderson; Jay S Steingrub; Robert M Arnold; Douglas B White Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: C Adrian Austin; Dinushika Mohottige; Rebecca L Sudore; Alexander K Smith; Laura C Hanson Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Tereza Martinu; Shailaja J Sathy; Alison S Clay; Jessica Chia; Alice L Gray; Maren K Olsen; Joseph A Govert; Shannon S Carson; James A Tulsky Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Shannon S Carson; Christopher E Cox; Sylvan Wallenstein; Laura C Hanson; Marion Danis; James A Tulsky; Emily Chai; Judith E Nelson Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Nicholas G Wysham; Brenda Walton; Derek Jones; Brian Cass; Maria Tobin; Mattias Jonsson; Jeremy M Kahn; Douglas B White; Catherine L Hough; Carmen L Lewis; Shannon S Carson Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Kimberly J Rak; Laura Ellen Ashcraft; Courtney C Kuza; Jessica C Fleck; Lisa C DePaoli; Derek C Angus; Amber E Barnato; Nicholas G Castle; Tina B Hershey; Jeremy M Kahn Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Angela O Suen; Rachel A Butler; Robert M Arnold; Brad Myers; Holly O Witteman; Christopher E Cox; Jennifer Gonzalez McComb; Praewpannanrai Buddadhumaruk; Anne-Marie Shields; Noah Morse; Amanda Argenas; Douglas B White Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-07
Authors: Emily A Harlan; Jacquelyn Miller; Deena K Costa; Angela Fagerlin; Theodore J Iwashyna; Emily P Chen; Kyra Lipman; Thomas S Valley Journal: Chest Date: 2020-05-24 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Isaretta L Riley; Deepshikha C Ashana; Krista Haines; Maren K Olsen; Jessie Gu; Elias H Pratt; Mashael Al-Hegelan; Robert W Harrison; Colleen Naglee; Allie Frear; Hongqiu Yang; Kimberly S Johnson; Sharron L Docherty Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-02-13 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Angela O Suen; Rachel A Butler; Robert Arnold; Brad Myers; Holly O Witteman; Christopher E Cox; Amanda Argenas; Praewpannanrai Buddadhumaruk; Alexandra Bursic; Natalie C Ernecoff; Anne-Marie Shields; Dang K Tran; Douglas B White Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2019-12-06 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Susanne Muehlschlegel; David Y Hwang; Julie Flahive; Thomas Quinn; Christopher Lee; Jesse Moskowitz; Kelsey Goostrey; Kelsey Jones; Jolanta J Pach; Andrea K Knies; Lori Shutter; Robert Goldberg; Kathleen M Mazor Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 9.910