Eliciting Patient Risk Willingness in Clinical Consultations as a Means of Improving Decision-Making of Aortic Valve Replacement

Risk willingness in multiple system atrophy and Parkinson's disease understanding patient preferences

Disease-modifying therapeutics in the α-synucleinopathies multiple system atrophy (MSA) and Parkinson's Disease (PD) are in early phases of clinical testing. Involving patients' preferences including therapy-associated risk willingness in initial stages of therapy development has been increasingly pursued in regulatory approval processes. In our study with 49 MSA and 38 PD patients, therapy-associated risk willingness was quantified using validated standard gamble scenarios for varying severities of potential drug or surgical side effects. Demonstrating a non-gaussian distribution, risk willingness varied markedly within, and between groups. MSA patients accepted a median 1% risk [interquartile range: 0.001-25%] of sudden death for a 99% [interquartile range: 99.999-75%] chance of cure, while PD patients reported a median 0.055% risk [interquartile range: 0.001-5%]. Contrary to our hypothesis, a considerable proportion of MSA patients, despite their substantially impaired quality of life, were not willing to accept increased therapy-associated risks. Satisfaction with life situation, emotional, and nonmotor disease burden were associated with MSA patients' risk willingness in contrast to PD patients, for whom age, and disease duration were associated factors. An individual approach towards MSA and PD patients is crucial as direct inference from disease (stage) to therapy-associated risk willingness is not feasible. Such studies may be considered by regulatory agencies in their approval processes assisting with the weighting of safety aspects in a patient-centric manner. A systematic quantitative assessment of patients' risk willingness and associated features may assist physicians in conducting individual consultations with patients who have MSA or PD by facilitating communication of risks and benefits of a treatment option.

What matters most to patients with severe aortic stenosis when choosing treatment? Framing the conversation for shared decision making

Background

Guidelines recommend including the patient’s values and preferences when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis (sAS). However, little is known about what matters most to patients as they develop treatment preferences. Our objective was to identify, prioritize, and organize patient-reported goals and features of treatment for sAS.

Methods

This multi-center mixed-methods study conducted structured focus groups using the nominal group technique to identify patients’ most important treatment goals and features. Patients separately rated and grouped those items using card sorting techniques. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses generated a cognitive map and clusters.

Results

51 adults with sAS and 3 caregivers with experience choosing treatment (age 36–92 years) were included. Participants were referred from multiple health centers across the U.S. and online. Eight nominal group meetings generated 32 unique treatment goals and 46 treatment features, which were grouped into 10 clusters of goals and 11 clusters of features. The most important clusters were: 1) trust in the healthcare team, 2) having good information about options, and 3) long-term outlook. Other clusters addressed the need for and urgency of treatment, being independent and active, overall health, quality of life, family and friends, recovery, homecare, and the process of decision-making.

Conclusions

These patient-reported items addressed the impact of the treatment decision on the lives of patients and their families from the time of decision-making through recovery, homecare, and beyond. Many attributes had not been previously reported for sAS. The goals and features that patients’ value, and the relative importance that they attach to them, differ from those reported in clinical trials and vary substantially from one individual to another. These findings are being used to design a shared decision-making tool to help patients and their clinicians choose a treatment that aligns with the patients’ priorities.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, Trial ID: NCT04755426, Trial URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426.

Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation for Degenerated Mitral or Tricuspid Bioprosthetic Valves: A Heath Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Bioprosthetic valves used to treat mitral or tricuspid valve disease can be expected to deteriorate and eventually fail after 10 to 15 years. For patients who are considered inoperable or high-risk for surgery, medical management (i.e., drug therapy, the current standard of care in Ontario) does not significantly alter the course of valvular heart disease or improve degenerated bioprosthetic valves. An alternative for these patients is transcatheter mitral or tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation (TMViV or TTViV). We conducted a health technology assessment of transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for adults with degenerated mitral or tricuspid bioprosthetic valves who are considered inoperable or high-risk for surgery, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, the budget impact of publicly funding TMViV or TTViV, and patient preferences and values.

METHODS

We leveraged a previously published systematic review, supplementing the work with two new registry studies identified during the development of this report. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Downs and Black checklist and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. As the earlier systematic review did not identify any cost-effectiveness studies, we conducted a hand search of the grey literature using targeted websites to identify relevant cost-effectiveness studies. We analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for adults with degenerated mitral or tricuspid bioprostheses who are considered inoperable or high-risk for surgery in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of TMViV and TTViV, we spoke with people who had experience with heart valve replacement or who were awaiting heart valve replacement.

RESULTS

We included 19 studies in the clinical evidence review. No studies compared TMViV or TTViV to medical management (standard care). TMViV was associated with in-hospital, 30-day and 1-year mortality rates of 0% to 5%, 0% to 15%, and 14% to 27%, respectively (GRADE: Very low). TTViV was associated with 30-day and 1-year mortality rates of 0% to 3% and 0% to 14%, respectively (GRADE: Very low). Patients experienced functional improvement related to their heart failure symptoms after TMViV or TTViV. Compared to before the intervention, both TMViV and TTViV were associated with a decrease in the number of patients with New York Heart Association class III or IV symptoms in hospital and at 30-day follow-up (GRADE: Low). We identified no relevant cost-effectiveness studies from our targeted search. The annual budget impact of publicly funding TMViV and TTViV in Ontario over the next 5 years ranges from an additional $0.35 million in year 1 to a cost saving of $0.19 million in year 5, for a total cost saving of $0.33 million. The people we spoke to who had bioprosthetic heart valve failure reported the negative effects of valvular heart disease and described their positive perceptions of transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation. They valued the minimally invasive nature of transcatheter procedures and the quick recovery time.

CONCLUSIONS

TMViV or TTViV may reduce mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain. TMViV or TTViV may improve heart failure symptoms. We estimated that publicly funding TMViV and TTViV in Ontario would result in a cost saving of $0.33 million over the next 5 years. People with valvular heart disease reported their preference for a minimally invasive transcatheter procedure with a quick recovery time.

Smartphone and web-based independent consultation and feedback for joint replacement surgeries: a randomized control trial protocol

Background

Cost control and usage regulation of medical materials (MMs) are the practical issues that the government pays close attention to. Although it is well established that there is great potential to mobilize doctors and patients in participating MMs-related clinical decisions, few interventions adopt effective measures against specific behavioral deficiencies. This study aims at developing and validating an independent consultation and feedback system (ICFS) for optimizing clinical decisions on the use of MMs for inpatients needing joint replacement surgeries.

Methods

Development of the research protocol is based on a problem or deficiency list derived on a trans-theoretical framework which incorporates including mainly soft systems-thinking, information asymmetry, crisis-coping, dual delegation and planned behavior. The intervention consists of two main components targeting at patients and doctors respectively. Each of the intervention ingredients is designed to tackle the doctor and patient-side problems with MMs using in joint replacement surgeries. The intervention arm receives 18 months' ICFS intervention program on the basis of the routine medical services; while the control arm, only the routine medical services. Implementation of the intervention is supported by an online platform established and maintained by the Quality Assurance Center for Medical Care in Anhui Province, a smartphone-based application program (APP) and a web-based clinical support system.

Discussion

The implementation of this study is expected to significantly reduce the deficiencies and moral hazards in decision-making of MMs using through the output of economic, efficient, sustainable and easy-to-promote cooperative intervention programs, thus greatly reducing medical costs and standardizing medical behaviors.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN10152297.

Patient values and preferences on valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a systematic review

The review aims to summarise evidence addressing patients’ values, preferences and practical issues on deciding between transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. We searched databases and grey literature until June 2020. We included studies of adults with aortic stenosis eliciting values and preferences about treatment, excluding medical management or palliative care. Qualitative findings were synthesised using thematic analysis, and quantitative findings were narratively described. Evidence certainty was assessed using CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We included eight studies. Findings ranged from low to very low certainty. Most studies only addressed TAVI. Studies addressing both TAVI and SAVR reported on factors affecting patients’ decision-making along with treatment effectiveness, instead of trade-offs between procedures. Willingness to accept risk varied considerably. To improve their health status, participants were willing to accept higher mortality risk than current evidence suggests for either procedure. No study explicitly addressed valve reintervention, and one study reported variability in willingness to accept shorter duration of known effectiveness of TAVI compared with SAVR. The most common themes were desire for symptom relief and improved function. Participants preferred minimally invasive procedures with shorter hospital stay and recovery. The current body of evidence on patients’ values, preferences and practical issues related to aortic stenosis management is of suboptimal rigour and reports widely disparate results regarding patients’ perceptions. These findings emphasise the need for higher quality studies to inform clinical practice guidelines and the central importance of shared decision-making to individualise care fitted to each patient.

Hypertensive nephrosclerosis: wider kidney biopsy indications may be needed to improve diagnostics

BACKGROUND

Hypertensive nephrosclerosis is the presumed underlying cause in many end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients, but the diagnosis is disputed and based on clinical criteria with low diagnostic accuracy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and improve the diagnostic process for nephrosclerosis patients.

METHODS

We included adults from the population-based HUNT study (n = 50 552), Norwegian CKD patients referred for kidney biopsy 1988-2012 (n = 7261), and unselected nephrology clinic patients (n = 193) used for matching. Decision tree analysis and ROC curve-based methods of optimal cut-offs were used to improve clinical nephrosclerosis criteria.

RESULTS

Nephrosclerosis prevalence was 2.7% in the general population, and eGFR decline and risk for kidney-related hospital admissions and ESKD were comparable to patients with diabetic kidney disease. In the biopsy cohort, current clinical criteria had very low sensitivity (0.13) but high specificity (0.94) for biopsy-verified arterionephrosclerosis. A new optimized diagnostic algorithm based on proteinuria (<0.75 g d^-1 ), systolic blood pressure (>155 mm Hg) and age (>75 years) only marginally improved diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 0.19, specificity 0.96). Likewise, there were still false-positive cases with treatable diagnoses like glomerulonephritis, interstitial nephritis and others (40% of all test positive). Decision curve analysis showed that the new criteria can lead to higher clinical utility, especially for patients considering the potential harms to be close to the potential benefits, while the more risk-tolerant ones (harm:benefit ratio < 1:4) should consider kidney biopsy.

CONCLUSION

Further improvements of the current clinical criteria seem difficult, so risks and benefits of kidney biopsy could be more actively discussed with selected patients to reduce misclassification and direct treatment.

Outcomes following surgery in subgroups of comatose and very elderly patients with chronic subdural hematoma

Increasing age and lower pre-operative Glasgow coma score (GCS) are associated with worse outcome after surgery for chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH). Only few studies have quantified outcomes specific to the very elderly or comatose patients. We aim to examine surgical outcomes in these patient groups. We analysed data from a prospective multicentre cohort study, assessing the risk of recurrence, death, and unfavourable functional outcome of very elderly (≥ 90 years) patients and comatose (pre-operative GCS ≤ 8) patients following surgical treatment of CSDH. Seven hundred eighty-five patients were included in the study. Thirty-two (4.1%) patients had pre-operative GCS ≤ 8 and 70 (8.9%) patients were aged ≥ 90 years. A higher proportion of comatose patients had an unfavourable functional outcome (38.7 vs 21.7%; p = 0.03), although similar proportion of comatose (64.5%) and non-comatose patients (61.8%) functionally improved after surgery (p = 0.96). Compared to patients aged < 90 years, a higher proportion of patients aged ≥ 90 years had unfavourable functional outcome (41.2 vs 20.5%; p < 0.01), although approximately half had functional improvement following surgery. Mortality risk was higher in both comatose (6.3 vs 1.9%; p = 0.05) and very elderly (8.8 vs 1.1%; p < 0.01) groups. There was a trend towards a higher recurrence risk in the comatose group (19.4 vs 9.5%; p = 0.07). Surgery can still provide considerable benefit to very elderly and comatose patients despite their higher risk of morbidity and mortality. Further research would be needed to better identify those most likely to benefit from surgery in these groups.

Prevalence, predictors, and prognostic implications of residual impairment of functional capacity after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background

Patients with degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) typically have advanced cardiac and vascular adverse remodeling and multiple comorbidities and, therefore, might not recover a normal functional capacity after valve replacement. We sought to investigate the prevalence, the predictors, and the prognostic impact of residual impairment of functional capacity after TAVI.

Methods and results

Out of 790 patients undergoing TAVI with impaired functional capacity (NYHA II–IV) at baseline, NYHA functional class improved in 592 (86.5%) and remained unchanged/worsened in 92 (13.5%) at follow-up [median (IQR): 419 (208–807) days] after TAVI. Normal functional capacity (NYHA I) was recovered in 65.5% (n = 448) of patients, while the rest had variable degrees of residual impairment. On multivariable regression analysis, atrial fibrillation [odds ratio-OR, 2.08 (1.21–3.58), p = 0.008], low-flow–low-gradient AS [OR, 1.97 (1.09–3.57), p = 0.026], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [OR, 1.92 (1.19–3.12), p = 0.008], and lower hemoglobin at baseline [OR, 1.11 (1.01–1.21) for each g% decrement, p = 0.036] were independently associated with residual impairment of functional capacity. All-cause and cardiac mortality were significantly higher in those with residual impairment of functional capacity than in those in NYHA I class [hazard ratio-HR: 2.37 (95% CI: 1.51–3.72), p < 0.001 and 2.16 (95% CI: 1.08–4.35), p = 0.030, respectively]. Even mild residual functional impairment (NYHA II) was associated with a higher all-cause [HR: 2.02 (95% CI: 1.10–3.72), p = 0.023] and cardiac [HR: 2.08 (95% CI: 1.42–3.07), p < 0.001] mortality.

Conclusion

Residual impairment of functional capacity is common after TAVI and is independently associated with increased mortality. Predictors of residual impairment of functional status are predominantly patient-rather than procedure-related.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00392-017-1119-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient values and preferences on transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patients' values and preferences regarding aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis.

SETTING

Studies published after transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) became available (2002).

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with aortic stenosis who are considering or have had valve replacement, either TAVI or via surgery (surgical aortic valve replacement, SAVR).

OUTCOME MEASURES

We sought quantitative measurements, or qualitative descriptions, of values and preferences. When reported, we examined correlations between preferences and objective (eg, ejection fraction) or subjective (eg, health-related quality of life) measures of health.

RESULTS

We reviewed 1348 unique citations, of which 2 studies proved eligible. One study of patients with severe aortic stenosis used a standard gamble study to ascertain that the median hypothetical mortality risk patients were willing to tolerate to achieve full health was 25% (IQR 25-50%). However, there was considerable variability; for mortality risk levels defined by current guidelines, 130 participants (30%) were willing to accept low-to-intermediate risk (≤8%), 224 (51%) high risk (>8-50%) and 85 (19%) a risk that guidelines would consider prohibitive (>50%). Study authors did not, however, assess participants' understanding of the exercise, resulting in a potential risk of bias. A second qualitative study of 15 patients identified the following factors that influence patients to undergo assessment for TAVI: symptom burden; expectations; information support; logistical barriers; facilitators; obligations and responsibilities. The study was limited by serious risk of bias due to authors' conflict of interest (5/9 authors industry-funded).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence on patient values and preferences of adults with aortic stenosis is very limited, and no studies have enrolled patients deciding between TAVI and SAVR. On the basis of the data available, there is evidence of variability in individual values and preferences, highlighting the importance of well-informed and shared decision-making with patients facing this decision.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42016041907.

Eliciting Patient Risk Willingness in Clinical Consultations as a Means of Improving Decision-Making of Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Treatment decisions for aortic valve replacement (AVR) should be sensitive to patient preferences. However, we lack knowledge of patient preferences and how to obtain them.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed the mortality risk patients were willing to accept when undergoing AVR by using the Standard Gamble method and aimed to show how this risk willingness was affected by level of disease burden. We report findings from 439 patients, aged >18 years with severe aortic stenosis who were referred for evaluation of AVR to our institution. The vast majority of patients accepted a mortality risk regarded as high or prohibitive according to current guidelines. Of the 439 patients, 51% patients were willing to forego surgery with high mortality risk (8-50%) and 19% were willing accept a prohibitive mortality risk (>50%) as defined in current guidelines. However, the risk willingness varied considerably. Acceptance of prohibitive risk willingness (>50%) was associated with reporting of 3 to 5 different restricting symptoms, with an odds ratio of 4.07 (95% CI 1.56-10.59) opposed by increasing score on EuroQol-Visual Analog Scale, with an odds ratio of 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.00). The poor ability to predict risk willingness based on available clinical variables and health status suggests that other factors may be important advocating the need for tools for soliciting patient's preferences individually.

CONCLUSION

When undergoing AVR, patients were willing to accept considerably higher perioperative risk than what is considered acceptable in current guidelines and practice. Patient preferences varied considerably, and they should be directly assessed and taken into account in decision-making and guidelines.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01794832.