Effect of Shared Decision-Making for Stroke Prevention on Treatment Adherence and Safety Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Use of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment decisions in adults with AF.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated digital patient decision-support tools for AF treatment decisions in adults with AF.

INFORMATION SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus from 2005 to 2023.Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment: We assessed RoB using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 for RCTs and cluster RCT and the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental studies.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

We used random effects meta-analysis to synthesise decisional conflict and patient knowledge outcomes reported in RCTs. We performed narrative synthesis for all outcomes. The main outcomes of interest were decisional conflict and patient knowledge.

RESULTS

13 articles, reporting on 11 studies (4 RCTs, 1 cluster RCT and 6 quasi-experimental) met the inclusion criteria. There were 2714 participants across all studies (2372 in RCTs), of which 26% were women and the mean age was 71 years. Socioeconomically disadvantaged groups were poorly represented in the included studies. Seven studies (n=2508) focused on non-valvular AF and the mean CHAD2DS2-VASc across studies was 3.2 and for HAS-BLED 1.9. All tools focused on decisions regarding thromboembolic stroke prevention and most enabled calculation of individualised stroke risk. Tools were heterogeneous in features and functions; four tools were patient decision aids. The readability of content was reported in one study. Meta-analyses showed a reduction in decisional conflict (4 RCTs (n=2167); standardised mean difference -0.19; 95% CI -0.30 to -0.08; p=0.001; I2=26.5%; moderate certainty evidence) corresponding to a decrease in 12.4 units on a scale of 0 to 100 (95% CI -19.5 to -5.2) and improvement in patient knowledge (2 RCTs (n=1057); risk difference 0.72, 95% CI 0.68, 0.76, p<0.001; I2=0%; low certainty evidence) favouring digital patient decision-support tools compared with usual care. Four of the 11 tools were publicly available and 3 had been implemented in healthcare delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of stroke prevention in AF, digital patient decision-support tools likely reduce decisional conflict and may result in little to no change in patient knowledge, compared with usual care. Future studies should leverage digital capabilities for increased personalisation and interactivity of the tools, with better consideration of health literacy and equity aspects. Additional robust trials and implementation studies are warranted.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020218025.

Improving medication adherence in cardiovascular disease

Non-adherence to medication is a global health problem with far-reaching individual-level and population-level consequences but remains unappreciated and under-addressed in the clinical setting. With increasing comorbidity and polypharmacy as well as an ageing population, cardiovascular disease and medication non-adherence are likely to become increasingly prevalent. Multiple methods for detecting non-adherence exist but are imperfect, and, despite emerging technology, a gold standard remains elusive. Non-adherence to medication is dynamic and often has multiple causes, particularly in the context of cardiovascular disease, which tends to require lifelong medication to control symptoms and risk factors in order to prevent disease progression. In this Review, we identify the causes of medication non-adherence and summarize interventions that have been proven in randomized clinical trials to be effective in improving adherence. Practical solutions and areas for future research are also proposed.

Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on patient perceptions and requirements during the perioperative period of robotic surgery

This research undertakes a comprehensive evaluation and amalgamation of patient experiences and requirements during the perioperative period of robot-assisted surgery (RS), with the goal of enriching clinical practice with patient-centered insights. A meta-synthesis was performed and reported according to the preferred reporting Items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and the enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research statement. A rigorous literature search was conducted across multiple Chinese and English databases, namely PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBLD), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, and VIP Information. This study incorporated ten qualitative studies, the outcomes were classified into three overarching themes: personalized patient requirements related to RS; the psychological and physiological experiences of patients; and the divergent perceptions of male and female patients regarding RS. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on patient comprehension of RS, augmenting focus on patient psychological experiences, recognizing unique patient needs at various stages of RS, and providing patients with specialized knowledge and technical support.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Characterizing Decision-Making Surrounding Exercise in ARVC: Analysis of Decisional Conflict, Decisional Regret, and Shared Decision-Making

BACKGROUND

Limiting high-intensity exercise is recommended for patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) due to its association with penetrance, arrhythmias, and structural progression. Guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) for exercise level, but there is little evidence regarding its impact. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the extent and implications of SDM for exercise, decisional conflict, and decisional regret in patients with ARVC and at-risk relatives.

METHODS

Adults diagnosed with ARVC or with positive genetic testing enrolled in the Johns Hopkins ARVC Registry were invited to complete a questionnaire that included exercise history and current exercise, SDM (SDM-Q-9), decisional conflict, and decisional regret.

RESULTS

The response rate was 64.8%. Two-thirds of participants (68.0%, n=121) reported clinically significant decisional conflict regarding exercise at diagnosis/genetic testing (DCS [decisional conflict scale]≥25), and half (55.1%, n=98) in the past year. Prevalence of decisional regret was also high with 55.3% (n=99) reporting moderate to severe decisional regret (DRS [decisional regret scale]≥25). The extent of SDM was highly variable ranging from no (0) to perfect (100) SDM (mean, 59.6±25.0). Those diagnosed in adolescence (≤age 21) reported significantly more SDM (P=0.013). Importantly, SDM was associated with less decisional conflict (ß=-0.66, R2=0.567, P<0.01) and decisional regret (ß=-0.37, R2=0.180, P<0.001) and no difference in vigorous intensity aerobic exercise in the 6 months after diagnosis/genetic testing or the past year (P=0.56; P=0.34, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is associated with lower decisional conflict and decisional regret; and no difference in postdiagnosis exercise. Our data thus support SDM as the preferred model for exercise discussions for ARVC.

Simplified rules-based tool to facilitate the application of up-to-date management recommendations in cardio-oncology

BACKGROUND

Millions of cancer survivors are at risk of cardiovascular diseases, a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Tools to potentially facilitate implementation of cardiology guidelines, consensus recommendations, and scientific statements to prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and other cardiovascular diseases are limited. Thus, inadequate utilization of cardiovascular medications and imaging is widespread, including significantly lower rates of statin use among cancer survivors for whom statin therapy is indicated.

METHODS

In this methodological study, we leveraged published guidelines documents to create a rules-based tool to include guidelines, expert consensus, and medical society scientific statements relevant to point of care cardiovascular disease prevention in the cardiovascular care of cancer survivors. Any overlap, redundancy, or ambiguous recommendations were identified and eliminated across all converted sources of knowledge. The integrity of the tool was assessed with use case examples and review of subsequent care suggestions.

RESULTS

An initial selection of 10 guidelines, expert consensus, and medical society scientific statements was made for this study. Then 7 were kept owing to overlap and revisions in society recommendations over recent years. Extensive formulae were employed to translate the recommendations of 7 selected guidelines into rules and proposed action measures. Patient suitability and care suggestions were assessed for several use case examples.

CONCLUSION

A simple rules-based application was designed to provide a potential format to deliver critical cardiovascular disease best-practice prevention recommendations at the point of care for cancer survivors. A version of this tool may potentially facilitate implementing these guidelines across clinics, payers, and health systems for preventing cardiovascular diseases in cancer survivors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT05377320.

Management of Patients Treated with Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Clinical Practice and Challenging Scenarios

It is well established that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the cornerstone of anticoagulant strategy in atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) and should be preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) since they are superior or non-inferior to VKAs in reducing thromboembolic risk and are associated with a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage (IH). In addition, many factors, such as fewer pharmacokinetic interactions and less need for monitoring, contribute to the favor of this therapeutic strategy. Although DOACs represent a more suitable option, several issues should be considered in clinical practice, including drug-drug interactions (DDIs), switching to other antithrombotic therapies, preprocedural and postprocedural periods, and the use in patients with chronic renal and liver failure and in those with cancer. Furthermore, adherence to DOACs appears to remain suboptimal. This narrative review aims to provide a practical guide for DOAC prescription and address challenging scenarios.

Shared decision making: a personal view from two kidney doctors and a patient

Shared decision making (SDM) combines the clinician's expertise in the treatment of disease with the patient's expertise in their lived experience and what is important to them. All decisions made in the care of patients with kidney disease can potentially be explored through SDM. Adoption of SDM in routine kidney care faces numerous institutional and practical barriers. Patients with chronic disease who have become accustomed to paternalistic care may need support to engage in SDM-even though most patients actively want more involvement in decisions about their care. Nephrologists often underestimate the risks and overestimate the benefits of investigations and treatments and often default to recommending burdensome treatments rather than discussing prognosis openly. Guideline bodies continue to issue recommendations written for healthcare professionals without providing patient decision aids. To mitigate health inequalities, care needs to be taken to provide SDM to all patients, not just the highly health-literate patients least likely to need additional support in decision making. Kidney doctors spend much of their time in the consulting room, and it is unjustifiable that so little attention is paid to the teaching, audit and maintenance of consultation skills. Writing letters to the patient to summarise the consultation rather than sending them a copy of a letter between health professionals sets the tone for a consultation in which the patient is an active partner. Adoption of SDM will require nephrologists to relinquish long-established paternalistic models of care and restructure care around the values and preferences of patients.

Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate an Atrial Fibrillation Stroke Prevention Shared Decision-Making Pathway

Background Oral anticoagulation reduces stroke and disability in atrial fibrillation (AF) but is underused. We evaluated the effects of a novel patient-clinician shared decision-making (SDM) tool in reducing oral anticoagulation patient's decisional conflict as compared with usual care. Methods and Results We designed and evaluated a new digital decision aid in a multicenter, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial, ENHANCE-AF (Engaging Patients to Help Achieve Increased Patient Choice and Engagement for AF Stroke Prevention). The digital AF shared decision-making toolkit was developed using patient-centered design with clear health communication principles (eg, meaningful images, limited text). Available in English and Spanish, the toolkit included the following: (1) a brief animated video; (2) interactive questions with answers; (3) a quiz to check on understanding; (4) a worksheet to be used by the patient during the encounter; and (5) an online guide for clinicians. The study population included English or Spanish speakers with nonvalvular AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc stroke score ≥1 for men or ≥2 for women. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either usual care or the shared decision-making toolkit. The primary end point was the validated 16-item Decision Conflict Scale at 1 month. Secondary outcomes included Decision Conflict Scale at 6 months and the 10-item Decision Regret Scale at 1 and 6 months as well as a weighted average of Mann-Whitney U-statistics for both the Decision Conflict Scale and the Decision Regret Scale. A total of 1001 participants were enrolled and followed at 5 different sites in the United States between December 18, 2019, and August 17, 2022. The mean patient age was 69±10 years (40% women, 16.9% Black, 4.5% Hispanic, 3.6% Asian), and 50% of participants had CHA2DS2-VASc scores ≥3 (men) or ≥4 (women). The primary end point at 1 month showed a clinically meaningful reduction in decisional conflict: a 7-point difference in median scores between the 2 arms (16.4 versus 9.4; Mann-Whitney U-statistics=0.550; P=0.007). For the secondary end point of 1-month Decision Regret Scale, the difference in median scores between arms was 5 points in the direction of less decisional regret (P=0.078). The treatment effects lessened over time: at 6 months the difference in medians was 4.7 points for Decision Conflict Scale (P=0.060) and 0 points for Decision Regret Scale (P=0.35). Conclusions Implementation of a novel shared decision-making toolkit (afibguide.com; afibguide.com/clinician) achieved significantly lower decisional conflict compared with usual care in patients with AF. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04096781.

Encounter-based randomization did not result in contamination in a shared decision-making trial: a secondary analysis

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the level of contamination in an encounter-randomized trial evaluating a shared decision-making (SDM) tool.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We assessed contamination at three levels: (1) tool contamination (whether the tool was physically present in the usual care encounter), (2) functional contamination (whether components of the SDM tool were recreated in the usual care encounters without directly accessing the tool), and (3) learned contamination (whether clinicians "got better at SDM" in the usual care encounters as assessed by the OPTION-12 score). For functional and learned contamination, the interaction with the number of exposures to the tool was assessed.

RESULTS

We recorded and analyzed 830 of 922 randomized encounters. Of the 411 recorded encounters randomized to usual care, the SDM tool was used in nine (2.2%) encounters. Clinicians discussed at least one patient-important issue in 377 usual care encounters (92%) and the risk of stroke in 214 encounters (52%). We found no significant interaction between number of times the SDM tool was used and subsequent functional or learned contamination.

CONCLUSION

Despite randomly assigning clinicians to use an SDM tool in some and not other encounters, we found no evidence of contamination in usual care encounters.

Shared Decision-Making for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

Adherence to guideline-recommended medications after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is suboptimal. Patient fidelity to treatment regimens may be related to their knowledge of the risk of death following AMI, the pros and cons of medications, and to their involvement in treatment decisions. Shared decision-making may improve both patients' knowledge and involvement in treatment decisions.

METHODS

In a pilot trial, patients hospitalized with AMI were randomized to the use of the AMI Choice conversation tool or to usual care. AMI Choice includes a pictogram of the patient's estimated risk of mortality at 6 months with and without guideline-recommended medications, ie, aspirin, statins, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Primary outcomes were patient knowledge and conflict with the decision made assessed via post-encounter surveys. Secondary outcomes were patient involvement in the decision-making process (observer-based OPTION12 scale) and 6-month medication adherence.

RESULTS

Patient knowledge of the expected survival benefit from taking medications was significantly higher (62% vs 16%, p<0.0001) in the AMI Choice group (n = 53) compared to the usual care group (n = 53). Both groups reported similarly low levels of conflict with the decision to start the medications (13 (SD 24.2) vs 16 (SD 22) out of 100; p=0.16). The extent to which clinicians in the AMI Choice group involved their patients in the decision-making process was high (OPTION12 score 53 out of 100, SD 12). Medication adherence at 6-months was relatively high in both groups and not different between groups.

CONCLUSION

The AMI Choice conversation tool improved patients' knowledge of their estimated risk of short-term mortality after an AMI and the pros and cons of treatments to reduce this risk. The effect on patient fidelity to recommended medications of using this SDM tool and of SDM in general should be tested in larger trials enrolling patients at high risk for nonadherence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00888537.