BACKGROUND: There is no evidence on effectiveness of advance care planning (ACP) among patients with heart failure (HF). We examined the effect of an ACP program in facilitating end of life (EOL) care consistent with the preferences of patients with HF (primary aim), and on their decisional conflict, discussion with surrogates, illness understanding, anxiety, depression, and quality of life (secondary aims). METHODS: We randomized 282 patients with HF to receive ACP (n=93) or usual care (control arm, n=189). Primary outcomes were assessed among deceased (n=89) and secondary outcomes from baseline and 6 follow-ups conducted every 4 months. RESULTS: Deceased patients in the ACP arm were no more likely than those in control arm to have wishes followed for EOL treatments (ACP: 35%, Control: 44%; P= .47), or place of death (ACP: 52%, Control: 51%; P = .1.00). A higher proportion in the ACP arm had wishes followed for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACP: 83%, Control: 62%; P = .12). At first follow-up, patients with ACP had lower decisional conflict (β = -10.8, P< .01) and were more likely to discuss preferences with surrogates (β = 1.3, P = .04). ACP did not influence other outcomes. CONCLUSION: This trial did not confirm that our ACP program was effective in facilitating EOL care consistent with patient preferences. The program led to short-term improvements in the decision-making.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There is no evidence on effectiveness of advance care planning (ACP) among patients with heart failure (HF). We examined the effect of an ACP program in facilitating end of life (EOL) care consistent with the preferences of patients with HF (primary aim), and on their decisional conflict, discussion with surrogates, illness understanding, anxiety, depression, and quality of life (secondary aims). METHODS: We randomized 282 patients with HF to receive ACP (n=93) or usual care (control arm, n=189). Primary outcomes were assessed among deceased (n=89) and secondary outcomes from baseline and 6 follow-ups conducted every 4 months. RESULTS: Deceased patients in the ACP arm were no more likely than those in control arm to have wishes followed for EOL treatments (ACP: 35%, Control: 44%; P= .47), or place of death (ACP: 52%, Control: 51%; P = .1.00). A higher proportion in the ACP arm had wishes followed for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACP: 83%, Control: 62%; P = .12). At first follow-up, patients with ACP had lower decisional conflict (β = -10.8, P< .01) and were more likely to discuss preferences with surrogates (β = 1.3, P = .04). ACP did not influence other outcomes. CONCLUSION: This trial did not confirm that our ACP program was effective in facilitating EOL care consistent with patient preferences. The program led to short-term improvements in the decision-making.
Authors: Chetna Malhotra; Meibo Hu; Rahul Malhotra; David Sim; Fazlur Rehman Jaufeerally; Filipinas G Bundoc; Eric A Finkelstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826