Marc A Probst1, Michelle P Lin1, Jeremy J Sze1, Erik P Hess2, Maggie Breslin3, Dominick L Frosch4, Benjamin C Sun5, Marie-Noelle Langan6, Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy7, Lynne D Richardson1. 1. From the, Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 2. the, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 3. the, School of Visual Arts, New York, NY. 4. the, Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. 5. the, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 6. and the, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 7. and the, Department of Emergency Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Significant practice variation is seen in the management of syncope in the emergency department (ED). We sought to evaluate the feasibility of performing a randomized controlled trial of a shared decision making (SDM) tool for low-to-intermediate-risk syncope patients presenting to the ED. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled trial of adults (≥30 years) with unexplained syncope who presented to an academic ED in the United States. Patients with a serious diagnosis identified in the ED were excluded. Patients were randomized, 1:1, to receive either usual care or a personalized syncope decision aid (SynDA) meant to facilitate SDM. Our primary outcome was feasibility, i.e., ability to enroll 50 patients in 24 months. Secondary outcomes included patient knowledge, involvement (measured with OPTION-5), rating of care, and clinical outcomes at 30 days post-ED visit. RESULTS:After screening 351 patients, we enrolled 50 participants with unexplained syncope from January 2017 to January 2019. The most common reason for exclusion was lack of clinical equipoise to justify SDM (n = 124). Patients in the SynDA arm tended to have greater patient involvement, as shown by higher OPTION-5 scores: 52/100 versus 27/100 (between-group difference = -25.4, 95% confidence interval = -13.5 to -37.3). Both groups had similar levels of clinical knowledge, ratings of care, and serious clinical outcomes at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Among ED patients with unexplained syncope, a randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool is feasible. Although this study was not powered to detect differences in clinical outcomes, it demonstrates feasibility, while providing key lessons and effect sizes that could inform the design of future SDM trials.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Significant practice variation is seen in the management of syncope in the emergency department (ED). We sought to evaluate the feasibility of performing a randomized controlled trial of a shared decision making (SDM) tool for low-to-intermediate-risk syncopepatients presenting to the ED. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled trial of adults (≥30 years) with unexplained syncope who presented to an academic ED in the United States. Patients with a serious diagnosis identified in the ED were excluded. Patients were randomized, 1:1, to receive either usual care or a personalized syncope decision aid (SynDA) meant to facilitate SDM. Our primary outcome was feasibility, i.e., ability to enroll 50 patients in 24 months. Secondary outcomes included patient knowledge, involvement (measured with OPTION-5), rating of care, and clinical outcomes at 30 days post-ED visit. RESULTS: After screening 351 patients, we enrolled 50 participants with unexplained syncope from January 2017 to January 2019. The most common reason for exclusion was lack of clinical equipoise to justify SDM (n = 124). Patients in the SynDA arm tended to have greater patient involvement, as shown by higher OPTION-5 scores: 52/100 versus 27/100 (between-group difference = -25.4, 95% confidence interval = -13.5 to -37.3). Both groups had similar levels of clinical knowledge, ratings of care, and serious clinical outcomes at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Among ED patients with unexplained syncope, a randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool is feasible. Although this study was not powered to detect differences in clinical outcomes, it demonstrates feasibility, while providing key lessons and effect sizes that could inform the design of future SDM trials.
Authors: Candace McNaughton; Kenneth A Wallston; Russell L Rothman; David E Marcovitz; Alan B Storrow Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Todd B Brown; Stacey S Cofield; Anand Iyer; Robin Lai; Hugh Milteer; Brannon Queen; Mark H Schwab; Michael Menchine; David L Schriger Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Darren Flynn; Meghan A Knoedler; Erik P Hess; M Hassan Murad; Patricia J Erwin; Victor M Montori; Richard G Thomson Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Erik P Hess; Judd E Hollander; Jason T Schaffer; Jeffrey A Kline; Carlos A Torres; Deborah B Diercks; Russell Jones; Kelly P Owen; Zachary F Meisel; Michel Demers; Annie Leblanc; Nilay D Shah; Jonathan Inselman; Jeph Herrin; Ana Castaneda-Guarderas; Victor M Montori Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-12-05
Authors: Marc A Probst; Alexander T Janke; Adrian D Haimovich; Arjun K Venkatesh; Michelle P Lin; Keith E Kocher; Marie-Joe Nemnom; Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 6.762
Authors: Tausif Billah; Lauren Gordon; Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Bernard P Chang; Erik P Hess; Marc A Probst Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2022-01-19
Authors: Shiraz Amin; Vedant Gupta; Gaixin Du; Colleen McMullen; Matthew Sirrine; Mark V Williams; Susan S Smyth; Romil Chadha; Seth Stearley; Jing Li Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-11-16 Impact factor: 5.428