Schmidt, Monika M

ABSTRACT Advanced chronic diseases, or multicomplexity in older adults presents unique challenges. Transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (ATTR‐CA) is one such scenario where heart failure is a common presentation, and management remains challenging. We describe the challenges involved in the diagnosis of ATTR‐CA in older adults, which has implications on treatment options. We discuss the application of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and shared decision making (SDM) in the context of these challenges. Based on geriatric medicine principles, an innovative framework for applying SDM in ATTR‐CA patients is proposed, including consideration of the patient priorities care approach. The proposed framework emphasizes assessing functionality, frailty, and life expectancy to help categorize risk. This framework can be applied in various advanced chronic diseases or multicomplexity. Based on risk categorization, treatment burden, and alignment with values and preferences, management pathways are suggested for each risk category. Incorporating CGA and SDM, the proposed framework supports patient‐centered care, ensuring that clinical recommendations are tailored to each older adult's unique needs and goals. In ATTR‐CA, a collaboration between cardiology and geriatric medicine provides significant value in managing older adults. The need to prevent age‐related bias in clinical decision‐making exists across all health conditions, and the proposed framework allows for a thorough evaluation of multimorbidity, frailty, disability, and patient preferences. While ATTR‐CA is used as a prototype, this integrated approach can be applied across all health conditions and is essential for delivering holistic care, improving communication, and aligning treatment plans with patient values.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.