Fatima Ali-Ahmed1, Karen Pieper1, Rebecca North2, Larry A Allen3, Paul S Chan4, Michael D Ezekowitz5, Gregg C Fonarow6, James V Freeman7, Alan S Go8, Bernard J Gersh9, Peter R Kowey5,10, Kenneth W Mahaffey11, Gerald V Naccarelli12, Sean D Pokorney1, James A Reiffel13, Daniel E Singer14, Benjamin A Steinberg15, Eric D Peterson1, Jonathan P Piccini1, Emily C O'Brien1. 1. Department of Cardiology, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC 27701, USA. 2. Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Research, St. Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO 64111, USA. 5. Department of Cardiology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. 7. Division of Research, Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510, USA. 8. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA 94612, USA. 9. Department of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. 10. Department of Cardiology, Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, PA 19096, USA. 11. Department of Medicine, Stanford Center for Clinical Research, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 12. Department of Cardiology, Penn State University, Hershey, PA 17033, USA. 13. Department of Cardiology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA. 14. Department of Cardiology, Harvard Medical School, and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA. 15. Department of Cardiology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), during selection of oral anticoagulant (OAC) and rhythm control treatments, in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated survey data from 1006 patients with new-onset AF enrolled at 56 US sites participating in the SATELLITE substudy of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT II). Patients completed surveys at enrolment and at 6-month follow-up. Patients were asked about who made their AF treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was classified as one that the patient felt was an autonomous decision or a shared decision with their healthcare provider (HCP). Approximately half of patients reported that their OAC treatment decisions were made entirely by their HCP. Compared with those reporting no SDM, patients reporting SDM for OAC were more often female (47.2% vs. 38.4%), while patients reporting SDM for rhythm control were more often male (62.2% vs. 57.6%). The most important factors cited by patients during decision-making for OAC were reducing stroke and bleeding risk, and their HCP's recommendations. After adjustment, patients with self-reported understanding of OAC, and rhythm control options, had higher odds of having participated in SDM [odds ratio (OR) 2.54, confidence interval (CI): 1.75-3.68 and OR 2.36, CI: 1.50-3.71, both P ≤ 0.001, respectively]. CONCLUSION: Shared decision-making is not widely implemented in contemporary AF practice. Patient understanding about available therapeutic options is associated with a more than a two-fold higher likelihood of SDM, and may be a potential target for future interventions. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: To determine the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), during selection of oral anticoagulant (OAC) and rhythm control treatments, in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated survey data from 1006 patients with new-onset AF enrolled at 56 US sites participating in the SATELLITE substudy of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT II). Patients completed surveys at enrolment and at 6-month follow-up. Patients were asked about who made their AF treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was classified as one that the patient felt was an autonomous decision or a shared decision with their healthcare provider (HCP). Approximately half of patients reported that their OAC treatment decisions were made entirely by their HCP. Compared with those reporting no SDM, patients reporting SDM for OAC were more often female (47.2% vs. 38.4%), while patients reporting SDM for rhythm control were more often male (62.2% vs. 57.6%). The most important factors cited by patients during decision-making for OAC were reducing stroke and bleeding risk, and their HCP's recommendations. After adjustment, patients with self-reported understanding of OAC, and rhythm control options, had higher odds of having participated in SDM [odds ratio (OR) 2.54, confidence interval (CI): 1.75-3.68 and OR 2.36, CI: 1.50-3.71, both P ≤ 0.001, respectively]. CONCLUSION: Shared decision-making is not widely implemented in contemporary AF practice. Patient understanding about available therapeutic options is associated with a more than a two-fold higher likelihood of SDM, and may be a potential target for future interventions. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Benjamin A Steinberg; Rosalia G Blanco; Donna Ollis; Sunghee Kim; DaJuanicia N Holmes; Peter R Kowey; Gregg C Fonarow; Jack Ansell; Bernard Gersh; Alan S Go; Elaine Hylek; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Laine Thomas; Paul Chang; Eric D Peterson; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Hugh Calkins; Lin Y Chen; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Karen L Furie; Paul A Heidenreich; Katherine T Murray; Julie B Shea; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Geoffrey H Tison; José M Sanchez; Brandon Ballinger; Avesh Singh; Jeffrey E Olgin; Mark J Pletcher; Eric Vittinghoff; Emily S Lee; Shannon M Fan; Rachel A Gladstone; Carlos Mikell; Nimit Sohoni; Johnson Hsieh; Gregory M Marcus Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Ruth V Pritchett; Danai Bem; Grace M Turner; G Neil Thomas; Joanne L Clarke; Rebecca Fellows; Deirdre A Lane; Kate Jolly Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: Renate B Schnabel; Xiaoyan Yin; Philimon Gona; Martin G Larson; Alexa S Beiser; David D McManus; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Steven A Lubitz; Jared W Magnani; Patrick T Ellinor; Sudha Seshadri; Philip A Wolf; Ramachandran S Vasan; Emelia J Benjamin; Daniel Levy Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Glyn Elwyn; Dominick Frosch; Richard Thomson; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Amy Lloyd; Paul Kinnersley; Emma Cording; Dave Tomson; Carole Dodd; Stephen Rollnick; Adrian Edwards; Michael Barry Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 5.128