Zhang, Dongfeng

AbstractObjectiveThis study assesses the attitudes and preferences of Chinese clinicians toward their involvement in shared decision making (SDM).MethodsFrom May 2014 to May 2015, 200 Chinese clinicians from two hospitals were enrolled to complete a survey on their attitude towards SDM. We conducted the survey via face‐to‐face interviews before and after an educational intervention on SDM among young Chinese clinicians. The clinicians were asked to give the extent of agreement to SDM. They also gave the extent of difficulty in using decision aids (DAs) during the SDM process. The variation in the range of responses to each question before and after the SDM intervention was recorded. The frequency of changed responses was analyzed by using JMP 6.0 software. Data were statistically analyzed using Chi‐square and Mann–Whitney U tests, as appropriate to the data type. Multiple logistic regressions were used to test for those factors significantly and independently associated with preference for an approach for each scenario.ResultsOf the 200 young Chinese clinicians sampled, 59.0% indicated a preference for SDM and a desire to participate in SDM before receiving education or seeing the DA, and this number increased to 69.0% after seeing the DA with the sample video of the SDM process on Statin Choice. However, 28.5% of the respondents still reported that, in their current practice, they make clinical decisions on behalf of their patients. The clinicians who denied a desire to use the DA stated that the main barriers to implement SDM or DA use in China are lack of time and knowledge of SDM.ConclusionsMost young Chinese clinicians want to participate in SDM. However, they state the main barriers to perform SDM are lack of experience and time. The educational intervention about SDM that exposes clinicians to DAs was found to increase their receptivity.

Background Patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and a history of chest radiation therapy represent a complex and challenging cohort. It is unknown how transcatheter aortic valve replacement ( TAVR ) compares with surgical aortic valve replacement in this group of patients, which was the objective of this study. Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed all patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent either TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement at our institution with a history of mediastinal radiation (n=55 per group). End points were echocardiographic and clinical outcomes in‐hospital, at 30 days, and at 1 year. Inverse propensity weighting analysis was used to account for intergroup baseline differences. TAVR patients had a higher STS score than surgical aortic valve replacement patients (5.1% [3.2, 7.7] versus 1.6% [0.8, 2.6], P <0.001) and more often ( P <0.01 for all) a history of atrial fibrillation (45.5% versus 12.7%), chronic lung disease (47.3% versus 7.3%), peripheral arterial disease (38.2% versus 7.3%), heart failure (58.2% versus 18.2%), and pacemaker therapy (23.6% versus 1.8%). Postoperative atrial fibrillation was less frequent (1.8% versus 27.3%; P <0.001) and hospital stay was shorter in TAVR patients (4.0 [2.0, 5.0] versus 6.0 [5.0, 8.0] days; P <0.001). The ratio of observed‐to‐expected 30‐day mortality was lower after TAVR as was 30‐day mortality in inverse propensity weighting–adjusted Kaplan–Meier analyses. Conclusions In patients with severe aortic stenosis and a history of chest radiation therapy, TAVR performs better than predicted along with less adjusted 30‐day all‐cause mortality, postoperative atrial fibrillation, and shorter hospitalization compared with surgical aortic valve replacement. These data support further studies on the preferred role of TAVR in this unique patient population.