Crossley, George

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 .

Background: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) making decisions regarding anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Decision support tools (e.g., Decision Aids [DAs]) facilitate SDM. However, little research has compared the effectiveness of the two most common types of DAs: (1) encounter decision aid (EDA) and (2) pre-encounter patient decision aid (PDA). Our study assessed the comparative effectiveness of PDAs and EDAs on SDM during AF clinical encounters where stroke prevention strategies were discussed. Research Question: Do decision aids (PDA or EDA), alone or in combination, improve patients’ AF decision-making experience compared to usual care? Methods: A cluster randomized multi-center trial in patients with AF comparing usual care (no DA) vs. one DA (EDA or PDA) or both DAs. Clinicians and patients were randomized independently into 4 study arms. Clinicians were randomized to use or not use the EDA for all study visits, and patients were randomized to use or not use the PDA. Co-primary outcome domains were: (1) quality of SDM (2) patient knowledge, and (3) decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes included: (1) treatment choice, (2) treatment initiation, and (3) treatment persistence. Patient characteristics were assessed. We will present comparisons of the randomized DAs on the co-primary and secondary outcomes and subgroup analyses. Results: Between December 2020-July 2023, investigators in 6 U.S. healthcare systems enrolled 1117 patients (mean (M) age 69, 63% male, 89% White) and 107 clinicians. Compared to usual care (no DA, M=31.6), SDM was better in patients receiving PDA (M=35.4) and EDA (44.5) alone or together (M=43.7; p’s<0.001). Knowledge about AF was greatest for those receiving both DAs or the PDA alone (84% accurate responses for PDA and both vs 76% with no DA, p<0.001), followed closely by the EDA alone (82%, p=0.003). Finally, both DAs (M=19.5) and EDA alone (M=20.0) had better decisional conflict scores compared to usual care (M=25.8; p’s<0.001). We will present analyses that assess the impact of DAs on secondary outcomes and interactions with DA, patient, and clinical characteristics across each outcome. Conclusions: In one of the first randomized trials examining the comparative effectiveness of EDAs and PDAs on SDM in clinical medicine, both PDAs and EDAs improved shared decision-making, decisional conflict, and knowledge compared to patients receiving usual care.

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.