Shared Decision-Making for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Trial

Megan E Branda, Marleen Kunneman, Alejandra I Meza-Contreras, Nilay D Shah, Erik P Hess, Annie LeBlanc, Jane A Linderbaum, Danika M Nelson, Margaret R Mc Donah, Carrie Sanvick, Holly K Van Houten, Megan Coylewright, Sara R Dick, Henry H Ting, Victor M Montori, Megan E Branda, Marleen Kunneman, Alejandra I Meza-Contreras, Nilay D Shah, Erik P Hess, Annie LeBlanc, Jane A Linderbaum, Danika M Nelson, Margaret R Mc Donah, Carrie Sanvick, Holly K Van Houten, Megan Coylewright, Sara R Dick, Henry H Ting, Victor M Montori

Abstract

Objective: Adherence to guideline-recommended medications after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is suboptimal. Patient fidelity to treatment regimens may be related to their knowledge of the risk of death following AMI, the pros and cons of medications, and to their involvement in treatment decisions. Shared decision-making may improve both patients' knowledge and involvement in treatment decisions.

Methods: In a pilot trial, patients hospitalized with AMI were randomized to the use of the AMI Choice conversation tool or to usual care. AMI Choice includes a pictogram of the patient's estimated risk of mortality at 6 months with and without guideline-recommended medications, ie, aspirin, statins, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Primary outcomes were patient knowledge and conflict with the decision made assessed via post-encounter surveys. Secondary outcomes were patient involvement in the decision-making process (observer-based OPTION12 scale) and 6-month medication adherence.

Results: Patient knowledge of the expected survival benefit from taking medications was significantly higher (62% vs 16%, p<0.0001) in the AMI Choice group (n = 53) compared to the usual care group (n = 53). Both groups reported similarly low levels of conflict with the decision to start the medications (13 (SD 24.2) vs 16 (SD 22) out of 100; p=0.16). The extent to which clinicians in the AMI Choice group involved their patients in the decision-making process was high (OPTION12 score 53 out of 100, SD 12). Medication adherence at 6-months was relatively high in both groups and not different between groups.

Conclusion: The AMI Choice conversation tool improved patients' knowledge of their estimated risk of short-term mortality after an AMI and the pros and cons of treatments to reduce this risk. The effect on patient fidelity to recommended medications of using this SDM tool and of SDM in general should be tested in larger trials enrolling patients at high risk for nonadherence.

Trial registration number: NCT00888537.

Keywords: acute myocardial infarction; adherence; randomized trial; shared decision making.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr Megan Coylewright reports Funding for research and consulting from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott, Occlutech, and CardioSmart, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest about this work.

© 2022 Branda et al.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Communication of a patient’s risk of death after myocardial infarction without and with interventions using the AMI Choice conversation tool for a patient with a 15% mortality risk at 6 months.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow of participants through the trial.

References

    1. Tsao CW, Aday AW, Almarzooq ZI, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2022 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2022;145:e153–e639. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001052
    1. Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update of the guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2007 guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(19):1920–1959. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.02.009
    1. Krumholz HM, Anderson JL, Bachelder BL, et al. ACC/AHA 2008 performance measures for adults with ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on performance measures (writing committee to develop performance measures for ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation myocardial infarction) developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Family Physicians and American College of Emergency Physicians endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Hospital Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(24):2046–2099. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.10.012
    1. Shah ND, Dunlay SM, Ting HH, et al. Long-term medication adherence after myocardial infarction: experience of a community. Am J Med. 2009;122(10):961 e7–961 e13. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.12.021
    1. Ivers NM, Schwalm JD, Jackevicius CA, Guo H, Tu JV, Natarajan M. Length of initial prescription at hospital discharge and long-term medication adherence for elderly patients with coronary artery disease: a population-level study. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29(11):1408–1414. doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2013.04.009
    1. Pietrzykowski L, Michalski P, Kosobucka A, et al. Medication adherence and its determinants in patients after myocardial infarction. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):12028. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-68915-1
    1. Choudhry NK, Avorn J, Glynn RJ, et al. Full coverage for preventive medications after myocardial infarction. NEJM. 2011;365(22):2088–2097. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1107913
    1. Hargraves IG, Montori VM, Brito JP, et al. Purposeful SDM: a problem-based approach to caring for patients with shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(10):1786–1792. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2019.07.020
    1. Pocock SJ. Allocation of patients to treatment in clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979;35(1):183–197. doi:10.2307/2529944
    1. Breslin M, Mullan RJ, Montori VM. The design of a decision aid about diabetes medications for use during the consultation with patients with type 2 diabetes. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):465–472. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.024
    1. Montori VM, Breslin M, Maleska M, Weymiller AJ. Creating a conversation: insights from the development of a decision aid. PLoS Med. 2007;4(8):e233. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040233
    1. Fox KAA, Dabbous OH, Goldberg RJ, et al. Prediction of risk of death and myocardial infarction in the six months after presentation with acute coronary syndrome: prospective multinational observational study (GRACE). BMJ. 2006;333(7578):1091. doi:10.1136/bmj.38985.646481.55
    1. Yusuf S. Two decades of progress in preventing vascular disease. Lancet. 2002;360(9326):2–3. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09358-3
    1. Davis TC, Crouch MA, Long SW, et al. Rapid assessment of literacy levels of adult primary care patients. Fam Med. 1991;23(6):433–435.
    1. O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25–30. doi:10.1177/0272989X9501500105
    1. Haynes RB, McDonald HP, Garg AX. Helping patients follow prescribed treatment: clinical applications. JAMA. 2002;288(22):2880–2883. doi:10.1001/jama.288.22.2880
    1. Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, et al. The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect. 2005;8(1):34–42. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00311.x
    1. Kunneman M, Branda ME, Ridgeway JL, et al. Making sense of diabetes medication decisions: a mixed methods cluster randomized trial using a conversation aid intervention. Endocrine. 2021;75:377–391. doi:10.1007/s12020-021-02861-4
    1. Mullan RJ, Montori VM, Shah ND, et al. The diabetes mellitus medication choice decision aid: a randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(17):1560–1568. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.293
    1. Nannenga MR, Montori VM, Weymiller AJ, et al. A treatment decision aid may increase patient trust in the diabetes specialist. The statin choice randomized trial. Health Expect. 2009;12(1):38–44. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00521.x
    1. Couet N, Desroches S, Robitaille H, et al. Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expect. 2015;18(4):542–561. doi:10.1111/hex.12054
    1. Stephenson BJ, Rowe BH, Haynes RB, Macharia WM, Leon G. The rational clinical examination. Is this patient taking the treatment as prescribed? JAMA. 1993;269(21):2779–2781. doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03500210079036
    1. Weymiller AJ, Montori VM, Jones LA, et al. Helping patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus make treatment decisions: statin choice randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(10):1076–1082. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.10.1076
    1. Montori VM, Shah ND, Pencille LJ, et al. Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. Am J Med. 2011;124(6):549–556. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.01.013
    1. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Intention-to-treat principle. CMAJ. 2001;165(10):1339–1341.
    1. Doll JA, Kaltenbach LA, Anstrom KJ, et al. Impact of a copayment reduction intervention on medication persistence and cardiovascular events in hospitals with and without prior medication financial assistance programs. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(8):e014975. doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.014975
    1. Bruggmann C, Adjedj J, Sardy S, Muller O, Voirol P, Sadeghipour F. Effects of the interactive web-based video “Mon coeur, Mon BASIC” on drug adherence of patients with myocardial infarction: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(8):e21938. doi:10.2196/21938
    1. Ivers NM, Schwalm J-D, Bouck Z, et al. Interventions supporting long term adherence and decreasing cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction (ISLAND): pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2020;369:m1731. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1731
    1. Calvo E, Izquierdo S, Castillo R, et al. Can an individualized adherence education program delivered by nurses improve therapeutic adherence in elderly people with acute myocardial infarction?: a randomized controlled study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;120:103975. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.103975
    1. Joosten EA, DeFuentes-Merillas L, de Weert GH, Sensky T, van der Staak CP, de Jong CA. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom. 2008;77(4):219–226. doi:10.1159/000126073
    1. Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(1):114–131. doi:10.1177/0272989X14551638
    1. Mathijssen EGE, van den Bemt BJF, van den Hoogen FHJ, Popa CD, Vriezekolk JE. Interventions to support shared decision making for medication therapy in long term conditions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(2):254–265. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.034
    1. Trenaman L, Selva A, Desroches S, et al. A measurement framework for adherence in patient decision aid trials applied in a systematic review subanalysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;77:15–23. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.032
    1. Noseworthy PA, Branda ME, Kunneman M, et al. Effect of shared decision-making for stroke prevention on treatment adherence and safety outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11(2):e023048. doi:10.1161/JAHA.121.023048
    1. Kunneman M, Griffioen IPM, Labrie NHM, et al. Making care fit manifesto. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021. doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111871

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren