Patient values and preferences on transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis: a systematic review

Lyubov Lytvyn, Gordon H Guyatt, Veena Manja, Reed A Siemieniuk, Yuan Zhang, Thomas Agoritsas, Per O Vandvik, Lyubov Lytvyn, Gordon H Guyatt, Veena Manja, Reed A Siemieniuk, Yuan Zhang, Thomas Agoritsas, Per O Vandvik

Abstract

Objective: To investigate patients' values and preferences regarding aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis.

Setting: Studies published after transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) became available (2002).

Participants: Adults with aortic stenosis who are considering or have had valve replacement, either TAVI or via surgery (surgical aortic valve replacement, SAVR).

Outcome measures: We sought quantitative measurements, or qualitative descriptions, of values and preferences. When reported, we examined correlations between preferences and objective (eg, ejection fraction) or subjective (eg, health-related quality of life) measures of health.

Results: We reviewed 1348 unique citations, of which 2 studies proved eligible. One study of patients with severe aortic stenosis used a standard gamble study to ascertain that the median hypothetical mortality risk patients were willing to tolerate to achieve full health was 25% (IQR 25-50%). However, there was considerable variability; for mortality risk levels defined by current guidelines, 130 participants (30%) were willing to accept low-to-intermediate risk (≤8%), 224 (51%) high risk (>8-50%) and 85 (19%) a risk that guidelines would consider prohibitive (>50%). Study authors did not, however, assess participants' understanding of the exercise, resulting in a potential risk of bias. A second qualitative study of 15 patients identified the following factors that influence patients to undergo assessment for TAVI: symptom burden; expectations; information support; logistical barriers; facilitators; obligations and responsibilities. The study was limited by serious risk of bias due to authors' conflict of interest (5/9 authors industry-funded).

Conclusions: Current evidence on patient values and preferences of adults with aortic stenosis is very limited, and no studies have enrolled patients deciding between TAVI and SAVR. On the basis of the data available, there is evidence of variability in individual values and preferences, highlighting the importance of well-informed and shared decision-making with patients facing this decision.

Trial registration number: PROSPERO CRD42016041907.

Keywords: GRADE; Shared decision making; TAVI; aortic stenosis.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram.

References

    1. Ross J, Braunwald E. Aortic stenosis. Circulation 1968;38(1 Suppl):61–7. 10.1161/01.CIR.38.1S5.V-61
    1. Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG et al. . A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: The Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease. Eur Heart J 2003;24:1231–43. 10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00201-X
    1. Osnabrugge RL, Mylotte D, Head SJ et al. . Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:1002–12. 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.015
    1. Turina J, Hess O, Sepulcri F et al. . Spontaneous course of aortic valve disease. Eur Heart J 1987;8:471–83.
    1. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A et al. . Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis first human case description. Circulation 2002;106:3006–8. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000047200.36165.B8
    1. Perera S, Wijesinghe N, Ly E et al. . Outcomes of patients with untreated severe aortic stenosis in real-world practice. N Z Med J 2011;124:40.–.
    1. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO et al. . 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:e57–e185. 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.536
    1. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ et al. . Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2187–98. 10.1056/NEJMoa1103510
    1. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ et al. . Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1609–20. 10.1056/NEJMoa1514616
    1. Gargiulo G, Sannino A, Capodanno D et al. . Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2016;165:334–44. 10.7326/M16-0060
    1. Alonso-Coello P, Montori VM, Díaz MG et al. . Values and preferences for oral antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: physician and patient perspectives. Health Expect 2015;18:2318–27. 10.1111/hex.12201
    1. Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J et al. . GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 2016;353:i2089.
    1. 2014. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) CASP Checklists. Oxford: CASP. .
    1. Agoritsas T, Heen AF, Brandt L et al. . Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens. BMJ 2015;350:g7624 10.1136/bmj.g7624
    1. Hussain AI, Garratt AM, Brunborg C et al. . Eliciting patient risk willingness in clinical consultations as a means of improving decision-making of aortic valve replacement. J Am Heart Assoc 2016;5:e002828 10.1161/JAHA.115.002828
    1. Lauck SB, Baumbusch J, Achtem L et al. . Factors influencing the decision of older adults to be assessed for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: an exploratory study. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs Published Online First: 23 Oct 2015. doi: 10.1177/147451511561292710.1177/1474515115612927
    1. Hussain AI, Garratt AM, Beitnes JO et al. . Validity of standard gamble utilities in patients referred for aortic valve replacement. Qual Life Res 2016;25:1703–12. 10.1007/s11136-015-1186-1
    1. Lewis EF, Johnson PA, Johnson W et al. . Preferences for quality of life or survival expressed by patients with heart failure. J Heart Lung Transplant 2001;20:1016–24. 10.1016/S1053-2498(01)00298-4
    1. Singer LG, Theodore J, Gould MK. Validity of standard gamble utilities as measured by transplant readiness in lung transplant candidates. Med Decis Making 2003;23:435–40. 10.1177/0272989X03258421
    1. Steffens NM, Tucholka JL, Nabozny MJ et al. . Engaging patients, health care professionals, and community members to improve preoperative decision making for older adults facing high-risk surgery. JAMA Surg Published Online First: 29 Jun 2016. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.130810.1001/jamasurg.2016.1308

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅