Christensen, Joshua

Background: Deciding to use oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is complex. For many, the decision between treatment and non-treatment requires a primary tradeoff between the risks of potential stroke and increased bleeding. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that patient values and empiric stroke risk measured by CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score would influence OAC decisions. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial where eligible clinicians and patients were independently randomized to one of two decision aids (DAs) – a patient decision aid and/or an encounter decision aid. Eligible patients were adults with AF with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc≥1 for men or ≥2 for women. Patients newly prescribed (OAC-naive subgroup) or already taking OAC (OAC-experienced subgroup) were included. We assessed patient values using a 5-point Likert scale between stroke prevention and bleeding risk after SDM during a clinical encounter. We report preliminary results using descriptive statistics and adjusted analysis to investigate the effects of CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and expressed values on OAC use. Results: 1005 patients were included in the analysis. 828 (82%) patients valued stroke prevention over bleeding risk. Among the OAC-naive group, 175 (63%) valued stroke prevention more than bleed avoidance, 58 (20%) valued bleed avoidance more than stroke prevention, and 47 (17%) were neutral. In the unadjusted analysis, patients were more likely to value stroke prevention if they were OAC-experienced (p<0.001), older (p<0.001), female (p< 0.001), had patient-reported bleeding (p=0.003), or if CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥ 2 if male, ≥3 if female (p<0.001) Table 1 . After adjustments, there were significant associations for OAC use among patients who valued stroke prevention (OR 5.35, 95%CI 3.13-9.13, p<0.001) or had higher CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc (OR 2.03, 95%CI 1.26-3.27, p=0.004). Patients who valued bleed avoidance had an opposing association not to use OAC (OR 0.23, 95%CI 0.11-0.48, p<0.001). Conclusions: Patients with elevated risk (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score, age, and female), and those who reported a prior bleeding event valued stroke prevention more than bleeding avoidance. Both empiric stroke risk and patient values were associated with the decision to use OAC. While the tradeoff between stroke prevention and bleeding risk is only one aspect of the decision-making process, these results indicate variability in patient values may influence OAC use.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of multiple decision aid strategies in promoting high quality shared decision making for prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Design Cluster randomized controlled trial. Setting Six academic medical centers in the United States. Participants Patient participants were aged ≥18 with a diagnosis of non-valvular atrial fibrillation, at risk for stroke (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥1 for men, ≥2 for women), and scheduled for a clinical appointment to discuss stroke prevention strategies. Participating clinicians were those who manage stroke prevention strategies for participating patients. Intervention Patients were randomized to use a patient decision aid or usual care; clinicians were randomized to use an encounter decision aid or usual care with all participating patients. Main outcome measures Primary outcome measures were quality of shared decision making measured by OPTION12, knowledge of atrial fibrillation and its management, and decisional conflict. Results 1117 participants across six sites were included in the analysis. Compared with usual care, the combined use of both the patient decision aid and the encounter decision aid improved the quality of shared decision making (adjusted mean difference 12.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.0 to 16.2; P<0.001), improved patients’ knowledge (odds ratio 1.68 (95% CI 1.35 to 2.09; P<0.001), and reduced patients’ decisional conflict (adjusted mean difference −6.3 (95% CI −9.6 to −3.1; P<0.001). Statistically significant improvements were also observed with the encounter decision aid alone versus usual care for all three outcomes and with the patient decision aid alone versus usual care for quality of shared decision making and knowledge. No important differences were observed in treatment choices for stroke prevention or in participants’ satisfaction. No statistically significant difference in the length of visit across study groups was detected. Conclusion Patients who received any decision aid (encounter decision aid, patient decision aid, or both) had lower decisional conflict, better shared decision making, and greater knowledge than those receiving no decision aid, except for the effect of the patient decision aid on decisional conflict, which did not reach statistical significance. The study establishes that use of either pre-visit or in-visit decision aids individually or in combination is advantageous compared with usual care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04357288 .