Impact of predictive medicine on therapeutic decision making: a randomized controlled trial in congenital heart disease

Abstract

Computational modelling has made significant progress towards clinical application in recent years. In addition to providing detailed diagnostic data, these methods have the potential to simulate patient-specific interventions and to predict their outcome. Our objective was to evaluate to which extent patient-specific modelling influences treatment decisions in coarctation of the aorta (CoA), a common congenital heart disease. We selected three cases with CoA, two of which had borderline indications for intervention according to current clinical guidelines. The third case was not indicated for intervention according to guidelines. For each case, we generated two separate datasets. First dataset included conventional diagnostic parameters (echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging). In the second, we added modelled parameters (pressure fields). For the two cases with borderline indications for intervention, the second dataset also included pressure fields after virtual stenting simulations. All parameters were computed by modelling methods that were previously validated. In an online-administered, invitation-only survey, we randomized 178 paediatric cardiologists to view either conventional (control) or add-on modelling (experimental) datasets. Primary endpoint was the proportion of participants recommending different therapeutic options: (1) surgery or catheter lab (collectively, "intervention") or (2) no intervention (follow-up with or without medication). Availability of data from computational predictive modelling influenced therapeutic decision making in two of three cases. There was a statistically significant association between group assignment and the recommendation of an intervention for one borderline case and one non-borderline case: 94.3% vs. 72.2% (RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.14-1.50, p = 0.00) and 18.8% vs. 5.1% (RR: 3.09, 95% CI: 1.17-8.18, p = 0.01) of participants in the experimental and control groups respectively recommended an intervention. For the remaining case, there was no difference between the experimental and control group and the majority of participants recommended intervention. In sub-group analyses, findings were not affected by the experience level of participating cardiologists. Despite existing clinical guidelines, the therapy recommendations of the participating physicians were heterogeneous. Validated patient-specific computational modelling has the potential to influence treatment decisions. Future studies in broader areas are needed to evaluate whether differences in decisions result in improved outcomes (Trial Registration: NCT02700737).

Keywords: Congenital heart defects; Health policy.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1

Flow of participants in the trial

Fig. 2

Recommended course of action for each case. Experimental group includes participants randomized to see patient-specific modelling results in addition to conventional imaging data. Control group includes participants randomized to see only conventional imaging data. Fisher’s exact test was used to statistically test for an association between group assignment and recommended course of action. p-value for case 1: 0.00; case 2: 0.92; and case 3: 0.05. p-value < 0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference between the groups

Fig. 3

Detailed presentation of cases

Fig. 3

Detailed presentation of cases

Fig. 4

Stent implantation in Cases 1 (a) and 2 (b)

Fig. 5

Randomized controlled trial design