» Articles » PMID: 27919865

Shared Decision Making in Patients with Low Risk Chest Pain: Prospective Randomized Pragmatic Trial

Abstract

Objective:  To compare the effectiveness of shared decision making with usual care in choice of admission for observation and further cardiac testing or for referral for outpatient evaluation in patients with possible acute coronary syndrome.

Design:  Multicenter pragmatic parallel randomized controlled trial.

Setting:  Six emergency departments in the United States.

Participants:  898 adults (aged >17 years) with a primary complaint of chest pain who were being considered for admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing (451 were allocated to the decision aid and 447 to usual care), and 361 emergency clinicians (emergency physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) caring for patients with chest pain.

Interventions:  Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an electronic, web based system to shared decision making facilitated by a decision aid or to usual care. The primary outcome, selected by patient and caregiver advisers, was patient knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care; secondary outcomes were involvement in the decision to be admitted, proportion of patients admitted for cardiac testing, and the 30 day rate of major adverse cardiac events.

Results:  Compared with the usual care arm, patients in the decision aid arm had greater knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care (questions correct: decision aid, 4.2 v usual care, 3.6; mean difference 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.86), were more involved in the decision (observing patient involvement scores: decision aid, 18.3 v usual care, 7.9; 10.3, 9.1 to 11.5), and less frequently decided with their clinician to be admitted for cardiac testing (decision aid, 37% v usual care, 52%; absolute difference 15%; P<0.001). There were no major adverse cardiac events due to the intervention.

Conclusions:  Use of a decision aid in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome increased patient knowledge about their risk, increased engagement, and safely decreased the rate of admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01969240.

Citing Articles

Nurses' self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in evidence-based practice: Translation, construct validity and internal consistency of the Dutch scales.

Hoegen P, Echteld M, de Bot C, de Vos A, Demircay D, Ramis M Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 2025; 8:100286.

PMID: 39866967 PMC: 11762229. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100286.


Contemporary Risk Stratification of Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Kaur G, Chand S, Rai D, Baibhav B, Blankstein R, Mukherjee D US Cardiol. 2024; 16:e23.

PMID: 39600828 PMC: 11588174. DOI: 10.15420/usc.2022.10.


Expert Panel Perspective: Shared Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Team-Based Cardiovascular Care.

Perpetua E, Palmer R, Le V, Al-Khatib S, Beavers C, Beckman J JACC Adv. 2024; 3(7):100981.

PMID: 39130036 PMC: 11312306. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.100981.


Interventions to Facilitate Shared Decision-Making Using Decision Aids with Coronary Heart Disease Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Zheng H, Zhang D, Xiang W, Wu Y, Peng Z, Gan Y Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 24(8):246.

PMID: 39076712 PMC: 11266786. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2408246.


Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

Stacey D, Lewis K, Smith M, Carley M, Volk R, Douglas E Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024; 1:CD001431.

PMID: 38284415 PMC: 10823577. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub6.


References
1.
Kline J, Zeitouni R, Hernandez-Nino J, Jones A . Randomized trial of computerized quantitative pretest probability in low-risk chest pain patients: effect on safety and resource use. Ann Emerg Med. 2009; 53(6):727-35.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.09.034. View

2.
Hess E, Knoedler M, Shah N, Kline J, Breslin M, Branda M . The chest pain choice decision aid: a randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012; 5(3):251-9. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.964791. View

3.
Ladapo J, Blecker S, Douglas P . Physician decision making and trends in the use of cardiac stress testing in the United States: an analysis of repeated cross-sectional data. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 161(7):482-90. PMC: 4335355. DOI: 10.7326/M14-0296. View

4.
Cullen L, Than M, Brown A, Richards M, Parsonage W, Flaws D . Comprehensive standardized data definitions for acute coronary syndrome research in emergency departments in Australasia. Emerg Med Australas. 2010; 22(1):35-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2010.01256.x. View

5.
Thygesen K, Alpert J, Jaffe A, Chaitman B, White H, Katus H . Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2012; 126(16):2020-35. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31826e1058. View