LeBlanc, Annie

Background The objective is to examine and synthesise the best available experimental evidence about the effect of ambulatory consultation duration on quality of healthcare. Methods We included experimental studies manipulating the length of outpatient clinical encounters between adult patients and clinicians (ie, therapists, pharmacists, nurses, physicians) to determine their effect on quality of care (ie, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, safety, equity, patient-centredness and patient satisfaction). Information sources Using controlled vocabulary and keywords, without restriction by language or year of publication, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus from inception until 15 May 2023. Risk of bias Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument. Data synthesis Narrative synthesis. Results 11 publications of 10 studies explored the relationship between encounter duration and quality. Most took place in the UK’s general practice over two decades ago. Study findings based on very sparse and outdated evidence—which suggested that longer consultations improved indicators of patient-centred care, education about prevention and clinical referrals; and that consultation duration was inconsistently related to patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes—warrant low confidence due to limited protections against bias and indirect applicability to current practice. Conclusion Experimental evidence for a minimal or optimal duration of an outpatient consultation is sparse and outdated. To develop evidence-based policies and practices about encounter length, randomised trials of different consultation lengths—in person and virtually, and with electronic health records—are needed. Trial registration number OSF Registration DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/EUDK8.

Background: Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been shown to reduce the risk of death and myocardial infarction (MI) for stable coronary artery disease (CAD), many patients believe that PCI is a life-saving procedure. PCI for stable CAD is known to improve patients’ quality of life more rapidly than medications alone. We conducted a randomized trial to assess the impact of a decision aid (DA) compared to usual care (UC) for the treatment of stable CAD when there is a choice between PCI and optimal medical therapy (OMT). Methods: The PCI Choice trial was a prospective, randomized trial comparing the effects of DA versus UC. The DA was designed with a user-centered approach for an in-visit consultation, involving patients and clinicians throughout the development process. The final DA included information on myocardial infarction (MI), death and quality of life outcomes for PCI with OMT vs. OMT alone in the treatment of stable angina, stratified by angina type. Risks of procedure, bleeding, stent thrombosis, and need for future procedures were also depicted. The primary outcome was patient knowledge, measured by pre- and post-visit surveys. Additional outcomes included decisional conflict, patient satisfaction, preferred decision making style, and treatment decision. Results: A total of 110 patients were enrolled; mean age was 68.3 years and 26% of patients were women. At baseline, most patients had CCS Class I/II angina and were on a mean of two anti-anginal medications (2.3, SD 1.2). Knowledge increased among patients receiving DA compared to UC (63% vs. 44% p=0.0003). Specific knowledge about the impact of PCI for stable angina on death and MI was higher in both groups compared to prior studies (54% DA, 46% UC, p=0.45; 12% prior). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the DA group vs. UC (72% vs 40%, p=0.004). Decisional conflict was greater than in non-procedural DA trials, and was not different between the two arms (p=.43). Following exposure to DA, patients’ preference for sharing decision making tended to change more with DA (55% to 65%) than with UC (56% to 59%). While the proportion of patients choosing PCI over OMT was nearly half in both groups, there were fewer patients that remained undecided with DA (18% vs. 4%; p=0.14 overall difference). Conclusions: Exposure to a DA for the choice of PCI vs. optimal medical therapy in stable CAD improved patient knowledge and satisfaction and decreased uncertainty, without reducing the rate of PCI. Use of the DA in a larger patient population may further delineate impact on outcomes such as treatment choice, geographic variation and cost.

Background Guidelines promote shared decision‐making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within‐encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision‐making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results We conducted a multicenter, encounter‐level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow‐up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.

Importance: Up to 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have right bundle branch block (RBBB), and RBBB has been associated with a higher risk of mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB for patients with AMI. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) Data Sources: We have systematically searched Ovid, Scopus and Web of Science through January 2014. Study Selection: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts, selecting studies that described all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death in patients with RBBB and suspected ACS. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcomes. Knowledge synthesis: We pooled risk ratio with hazard ratio in studies reporting those outcomes. When reported, odds ratio was converted into risk ratio using reported event rate in each study’s unexposed -read: non RBBB- group. Main Outcomes: All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality (death). Results: Eighteen studies were found that reported eligible data. All were observational studies, involving over 89,000 patients. In short-term follow up (up to 30 days), RBBB on presentation was associated with higher all-cause mortality rate, compared to patients without RBBB (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.76-2.82). There was a trend for higher mortality at long-term follow up (range: 6 months-16 years) that did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.93-2.25). Figure-1 demonstrates the forest plot. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and majority of included studied were deemed moderate to high quality. Conclusion and Relevance: RBBB is associated with a more than 2-fold higher risk of all-cause mortality in patients with AMI at 30 days follow up. Patients with AMI and RBBB represent a high risk group for adverse outcomes. A sentence on the differential findings for new vs. old RBBB and association with outcomes could follow here.

Importance: Right bundle branch block (RBBB) is observed in approximately 5-14% of patients with heart failure (HF). Multiple observational studies have reported the association of RBBB with clinical outcomes in patients with HF. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB for patients with HF. Data Sources: We have systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and Scopus through January 2014. Study Selection: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts that described all cause or cardiovascular mortality in patients with RBBB and HF. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcome, i.e.: unadjusted event rates. Knowledge synthesis: We pooled reported risk ratio and hazard ratio. Main Outcomes: All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality (death). Results: We found 12 relevant observational studies enrolling over 38,000 patients. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Included studies had at least a moderate quality. Seven of those evaluated prognosis of patients with RBBB and heart failure. After a mean follow up period of 2.5 years (range: 1-5 years), RBBB was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to patients with heart failure but no BBB, RR 1.27, 95% CI (1.08-1.50), Figure 1. The other 5 studies evaluated CHF patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), comparing outcomes of patients with RBBB to those with LBBB. After a mean f/u period of 3 years, patients with RBBB were once again found to have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.12-1.89. Conclusion and Relevance: RBBB in patients with HF is associated with higher all-cause mortality in comparison to patients without inter-ventricular conduction defects, as well as LBBB patients in patients undergoing CRT setting.

Background: Shared decision-making with decision aids (DA) improves patient knowledge and reduces decisional conflict. The extent to which they do so across sociodemographic subgroups remains unknown. Methods: An encounter-level meta-analysis of five DA randomized trials examined the impact of sociodemographic variables on knowledge transfer and decisional conflict using a generalized linear model stratified by study and adjusted by treatment arm. Results: We analyzed 595 patient-clinician encounters. Significantly higher knowledge transfer with DA occurred in nearly all patient subgroups when compared to usual care (UC). Patients with more formal education tended to have greater knowledge transfer with UC; this was diminished with DA. There was a trend towards improved decisional conflict in all subgroups with the use of DA; overall decisional conflict was low. (see Table) Conclusion: The use of DA compared to UC significantly increases knowledge transfer across diverse subgroups and there is a tendency towards reduced decisional conflict. Differences at baseline, such as knowledge transfer across educational strata, may be mitigated with use of DA. In conclusion, DA are found to be effective across patient subgroups and may represent a novel strategy to lessen disparities.

Objective: Multiple large population based observational studies have evaluated the association of various ECG changes with long term adverse outcomes demonstrating conflicting results regarding the significance of right bundle branch block (RBBB). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB in healthy population. Methods: This systematic review follows an a priori established protocol and is reported following the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). We systematically searched EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus through January 2014. We also consulted with content experts to recommend studies for screening. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts, selecting randomized trials and prospective cohort studies that described all cause mortality or cardiovascular death in patients with RBBB. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcome or unadjusted event rates. For statistical analysis, hazard ratios were considered to approximate risk ratios. The main outcomes of the study are all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Results: Based on the eligibility, four large cohorts, with total patient count > 100,000 were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and included studies were deemed to be of high quality. As demonstrated in Figure 1, RBBB was not associated increase in all-cause mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.89-1.25) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.70-1.69). Conclusion: In asymptomatic healthy patients, RBBB is not associated with poor outcome.