IMPORTANCE Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely advocated for patients with valvular heart disease yet is not integrated into the heart team model for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Decision aids (DAs) have been shown to improve patient-centered outcomes and may facilitate SDM.OBJECTIVE To determine whether the repeated use of a DA by heart teams is associated with greater SDM, along with improved patient-centered outcomes and clinician attitudes about DAs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis mixed-methods study included a nonrandomized pre-post intervention and clinician interviews. It was conducted between April 30, 2015, and December 7, 2017, with quantitative analysis performed between January 12, 2017, and May 26, 2017, within 2 academic medical centers in northern New England among 35 patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at high to prohibitive risk for surgery. The qualitative analysis was performed between August 6, 2018, and May 7, 2019. The Severe Aortic Stenosis Decision Aid was delivered by 6 clinicians, with patients choosing between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and medical management.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Clinician SDM performance was measured using the Observer OPTION 5 scale with dual-independent coding of audiotaped clinic visits. Previsit and postvisit surveys measured the patient's knowledge, satisfaction, and decisional conflict. Audiotaped clinician interviews were coded, and qualitative thematic analysis was performed.RESULTS Six male clinicians and 35 patients (19 of 34 women [55.9%; 1 survey was missing]; mean [SD] age, 85.8 [7.8] years) participated in the study. Shared decision-making increased stepwise with repeated use of the DA (mean [SD] Observer OPTION 5 scores: usual care, 17.9 [7.6]; first use of a DA, 60.5 [30.9]; fifth use of a DA, 79.0 [8.4]; P < .001 for comparison between usual care and fifth use of DA). Multiple uses of the DA were associated with increased patient knowledge (mean difference, 18.0%; 95% CI, 1.2%-34.8%; P = .04) and satisfaction (mean difference, 6.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-10.8%; P = .01) but not decisional conflict (mean [SD]: usual care, 96.0% [9.4%]; first use of DA, 93.8% [12.5%]; fifth use of DA, 95.0% [11.2%]; P = .60). Qualitative analysis of clinicians' interviews revealed that clinicians perceived that they used an SDM approach without DAs and that the DA was not well understood by elderly patients. There was infrequent values clarification or discussion of stroke risk. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCEIn a mixed-methods pilot study, use of a DA for severe aortic stenosis by heart team clinicians was associated with improved SDM and patient-centered outcomes. However, in qualitative interviews, heart team clinicians did not perceive a significant benefit of the DA, and therefore sustained implementation is unlikely. This pilot study of SDM clarifies new research directions for heart teams.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Shared decision-making in cardiology is increasingly recommended to improve patient-centeredness of care. Decision aids can improve patient knowledge and decisional quality but are infrequently used in real-world practice. This mixed-methods study tests the efficacy and acceptability of a decision aid integrated into the electronic health record (Integrated Decision Aid [IDeA]) and delivered by clinicians for patients with atrial fibrillation considering options to reduce stroke risk. We aimed to determine whether the IDeA improves patient knowledge, reduces decisional conflict, and is seen as acceptable by clinicians and patients. Methods: A small cluster randomized trial included 6 cardiovascular clinicians and 66 patients randomized either to the IDeA (HealthDecision) or usual care (clinician discretion) during a clinical encounter when stroke prevention treatment options were discussed. The primary outcome was patient knowledge of personalized stroke risk. Exploratory outcomes included decisional conflict, values concordance, trust, the presence of a shared decision-making process, and patient knowledge related to time spent using the IDeA. Additionally, we conducted semistructured interviews with clinicians and patients who used the IDeA were conducted to assess acceptability and predictions of future use. Results: The IDeA significantly increased patients’ knowledge of their stroke risk (odds ratio, 3.88 [95% CI, 1.39–10.78]; P <0.01]). Patients had less uncertainty about their final decision ( P =0.04). There were no significant differences in values concordance, trust in clinician or shared decision-making. Despite training, each clinician used the IDeA differently. Qualitative analysis revealed patients prefer using the IDeA earlier in their diagnosis. Clinicians were satisfied with the IDeA, yet varied in the contexts in which they planned to use it in the future. Conclusions: Using an Integrated Decision Aid, or IDeA, increases patient knowledge and lessens uncertainty for decision-making around stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Qualitative data provide insight into potential implementation strategies in real-world practice.

Rates of stress (Takotsubo) cardiomyopathy have increased during the coronavirus pandemic due to social stressors, even in patients who are not infected with the virus. At times, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TC) may present as cardiogenic shock. Herein, we present a case during the pandemic of shock from TC secondary to left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO), mitral regurgitation (MR), and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. The contrasting management strategy of LVOTO, MR, and LV failure was cause for clinical challenge, and we highlight the balance of treating these opposing forces.

No abstract

No abstract