Walsh, Mary Norine

Background. Despite demonstrated efficacy, patient decision aids (DAs) are rarely used in clinical practice in the absence of coverage mandates. Deciding whether to pursue a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a major, preference-sensitive decision—ideal for exploring implementation of a DA. Methods. We conducted a type II effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial at 6 LVAD programs using a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design. Using the RE-AIM framework, we collected both quantitative and qualitative outcomes, including a checklist collected by study staff for each enrolled patient regarding DA use and interviews with LVAD program clinicians preintervention, 6 months postintervention, and at the conclusion of the study. Results. From June 2015 to January 2017, 248 patients and their caregivers were enrolled. A total of 69 interviews were conducted with 48 clinicians at 3 time points. The DA reached 95% of eligible patients. Adoption was 100%, as all sites approached agreed to participate in the trial. Interviews revealed several themes related to the implementation of the DA: clinicians had a strong desire to ensure patients were informed and embraced the DA. Despite this, they reported communication challenges among their team that impeded implementation. Five of the 6 sites have maintained use of the DA following the trial; 1 site reported concerns about decreased procedural volume with use of the DA as a reason for discontinuation. Conclusions. In this hybrid trial, a DA for patients considering LVADs and their caregivers demonstrated high reach. Adoption and implementation were facilitated by a strong desire to ensure that patients were well informed. Future dissemination research and practice should attend to concerns about procedure volume and coverage mandates and facilitate ongoing communication at sites using the DA.

Background— The Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) demonstrated that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy reduces all-cause mortality in patients with New York Heart Association class II/III heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% on optimal medical therapy. Whether ICD therapy reduced sudden death caused by ventricular tachyarrhythmias without affecting heart failure deaths in this population is unknown. Methods and Results— SCD-HeFT randomized 2521 subjects to placebo, amiodarone, or shock-only, single-lead ICD therapy. Over a median follow-up of 45.5 months, a total of 666 deaths occurred, which were reviewed by an Events Committee and initially categorized as cardiac or noncardiac. Cardiac deaths were further adjudicated as resulting from sudden death presumed to be ventricular tachyarrhythmic, bradyarrhythmia, heart failure, or other cardiac causes. ICD therapy significantly reduced cardiac mortality compared with placebo (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.95) and tachyarrhythmia mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.59) and had no impact on mortality resulting from heart failure or noncardiac causes. The cardiac and tachyarrhythmia mortality reductions were evident in subjects with New York Heart Association class II but not in subjects with class III heart failure. The reduction in tachyarrhythmia mortality with ICD therapy was similar in subjects with ischemic and nonischemic disease. Compared with placebo, amiodarone had no significant effect on any mode of death. Conclusions— ICD therapy reduced cardiac mortality and sudden death presumed to be ventricular tachyarrhythmic in SCD-HeFT and had no effect on heart failure mortality. Amiodarone had no effect on all-cause mortality or its cause-specific components, except an increase in non-cardiac mortality in class III patients. Clinical Trial Registration Information— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000609.