Project description:BACKGROUND: Transfemoral approach (TFA) remains the most common vascular access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in many countries. However, in the last years several randomized trials compared transradial approach (TRA) with TFA in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but only few studies were powered to estimate rare events. The aim of the current study was to clarify whether TRA is superior to TFA approach in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A meta-analysis, meta-regression and trial sequential analysis of safety and efficacy of TRA in ACS setting was performed. METHODS AND RESULTS: Medline, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, scientific session abstracts and relevant websites were searched. Data concerning the study design, patient characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were extracted. The primary endpoint was death. Secondary endpoints were: major bleeding and vascular complications. Outcomes were assessed within 30 days. Eleven randomized trials involving 9,202 patients were included. Compared with TFA, TRA significantly reduced the risk of death (odds ratio [OR] 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.94; p?=?0.016), but this finding was not confirmed in trial sequential analysis, indicating that sufficient evidence had not been yet reached. Furthermore, TRA compared with TFA reduced the risk of major bleeding (OR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41-0.88; p?=?0.008) and vascular complications (OR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.28-0.46; p<0.001); these findings were supported by trial sequential analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, a lower risk of death was observed with TRA. Nevertheless, the association between mortality and TRA in ACS setting should be interpreted with caution because it is based on insufficient evidence. However, because of the clinical relevance associated with major bleeding and vascular complications reduction, TRA should be recommended as first-choice vascular access in patients with ACS undergoing cardiac catheterization.
Project description:Transradial approach (TRA) outweighed transfemoral approach (TFA) in acute coronary syndrome patients because the former has better short-term outcomes in high-volume percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centers. Our study was one of the limited studies specifically in comparing the short- and medium-term effects of TRA and those of TFA in patients undergoing elective PCIs.A total of 21,242 patients who underwent elective PCI with stent implantation were included. Using propensity score methodology, 1,634 patient pairs were matched. Major clinical outcomes and PCI-related complications between TRA and TFA were compared.In the propensity score-matched patients, the rates of in-hospital net adverse clinical events, which included death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stroke, and major bleeding, were much lower with TRA than with TFA (1.8% vs. 3.9%, P < 0.001). This difference was mainly due to the lower rate of major bleeding (0.6% vs. 1.8%, P < 0.001) and the decreased rate of MI (1.1% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.060). PCI-related dissection and thrombosis were similar between the TRA and TFA groups (both P > 0.05). Meanwhile, one-year incidence rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, which included death, MI, and TVR, were also similar (4.1% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.272) in TRA and TFA. Multivariable regression analyses showed that TRA was an independent predictor of the low rate of in-hospital net adverse clinical events (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.40 to 0.71), but not of major adverse cardiovascular events at one-year follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.06).In patients undergoing elective PCI, TRA patients had lower rates of in-hospital net adverse clinical outcomes compared with TFA patients. TRA might be recommended as a routine approach in high-volume PCI hospitals for elective PCIs.
Project description:Background Drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of restenosis in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, but their use necessitates prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, which increases costs and bleeding risk, and which may delay elective surgeries. While >80% of patients in the United States receive drug-eluting stents, less than a third report that their physicians discussed options with them. Methods and Results An individualized shared decision-making (SDM) tool for stent selection was designed and implemented at 2 US hospitals. In the postimplementation phase, all patients received the SDM tool before their procedure, with or without decision coaching from a trained nurse. All patients were interviewed with respect to their knowledge of stents, their participation in SDM, and their stent preference. Between May 2014 and December 2016, 332 patients not receiving the SDM tool, 113 receiving the SDM tool with coaching, and 136 receiving the tool without coaching were interviewed. Patients receiving the SDM tool + coaching, as compared with usual care, demonstrated higher knowledge scores (mean difference +1.8; P<0.001), reported more frequent participation in SDM (odds ratio=2.96; P<0.001), and were more likely to state a stent preference (odds ratio=2.00; P<0.001). No significant differences were observed between the use of the SDM tool without coaching and usual care. For patients who voiced a stent preference, concordance between stent desired and stent received was 98% for patients who preferred a drug-eluting stent and 50% for patients who preferred a bare metal stent. The SDM tool (with or without coaching) had no impact on stent selection or concordance. Conclusions An SDM tool for stent selection was associated with improvements in patient knowledge and SDM only when accompanied by decision coaching. However, the SDM tool (with or without coaching) had no impact on stent selection or concordance between patients' stent preference and stent received, suggesting that physician-level barriers to SDM may exist. Clinical Trial Information URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique Identifier: NCT02046902.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the recent increase in the number of publications on diagnostic cerebral angiograms using transradial access (TRA), there have been relatively few regarding TRA for neurointerventional cases. Questions of feasibility and safety may still exist among physicians considering TRA for neurointerventional procedures. METHODS:A systematic literature review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Three online databases (MedLine via PubMed, Scopus and Embase) were searched for articles published between January 2000 and December 2019. Search terms included "Transradial access", "Radial Access", "Radial artery" AND "Neurointerventions". The reference lists of selected articles and pertinent available non-systematic analysis were reviewed for other potential citations. Primary outcomes measured were access site complications and crossover rates. RESULTS:Twenty-one studies (n=1342 patients) were included in this review. Two of the studies were prospective while the remaining 19 were retrospective. Six studies (n=616 patients) included TRA carotid stenting only. The rest of the studies included treatment for cerebral aneurysms (n=423), mechanical thrombectomy (n=127), tumor embolization (n=22), and other indications (n=154) such as angioplasty and stenting for vertebrobasilar stenosis, balloon test occlusion, embolization of dural arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous malformation, chemotherapeutic drug delivery, intra-arterial thrombolysis, and arterial access during a venous stenting procedure. Two (0.15%) major complications and 37 (2.75%) minor complications were reported. Sixty-four (4.77%) patients crossed over to transfemoral access for completion of the procedure. Seven (0.52%) patients crossed over due to access failure and 57 (4.24%) patients crossed over to TFA due to inability to cannulate the target vessel. CONCLUSION:This systematic review demonstrates that TRA has a relatively low rate of access site complications and crossovers. With increasing familiarity, development of TRA-specific neuroendovascular devices, and the continued reports of its success in the literature, TRA is expected to become more widely used by neurointerventionalists.
Project description:Left transradial approach (TRA) for coronary angiography is associated with lower radiation parameters than right TRA in an all-comers population. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of left versus right TRA on radiation parameters in patients with predictors of TRA failure. Patients with predictors of TRA failure (?3 of 4 following criteria: age ?70 years, female gender, height ?64 inches, and hypertension) referred to TRA operators were randomized to either right (n = 50) or left (n = 50) TRA, whereas those referred to transfemoral approach (TFA) operators were enrolled in a prospective registry (n = 50). The primary end point was the radiation measure of dose-area product (DAP). In an intention-to-treat analysis, DAP (34.1 Gy·cm(2) [24.9 to 45.6] vs 41.9 Gy·cm(2) [27.3 to 58.0], p = 0.08), fluoroscopy time (3.7 minutes [2.4 to 6.3] vs 5.6 minutes [3.1 to 8.7], p = 0.07), and operator radiation exposure (516 ?R [275 to 967] vs 730 ?R [503 to 1,165], p = 0.06) were not significantly different between left and right TRA, but total dose (411 mGy [310 to 592] vs 537 mGy [368 to 780], p = 0.03) was significantly lower with left versus right TRA. Radiation parameters were lowest in the TFA cohort (DAP 24.5 Gy·cm(2) [15.7 to 33.2], p <0.001; fluoroscopy time 2.3 minutes [1.5 to 3.7], p <0.001; operator radiation exposure 387 ?R [264 to 557]; total dose 345 mGy [250 to 468], p = 0.001). Results were similar after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. In conclusion, median measurements of radiation were overall not significantly different between left versus right TRA in this select population of patients with predictors of TRA failure. All measurements of radiation were lowest in the TFA group.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Shared decision-making (SDM) can advance patient satisfaction, understanding, goal fulfilment, and patient-reported outcomes. We lack clarity on whether this physician-focused literature applies to community rehabilitation, and on the integration of SDM policies in healthcare settings. We aimed to understand patient and provider perceptions of shared decision-making (SDM) in community rehabilitation, particularly the barriers and facilitators to SDM. METHODS:We used a focused ethnography involving 14 community rehabilitation sites across Alberta, including rural, regional-urban and metropolitan-urban sites. We conducted semi-structured interviews that asked participants about their positive and negative communication experiences (n =?23 patients; n =?26 providers). RESULTS:We found SDM experiences fluctuated between extremes: Getting Patient Buy-In and Aligning Expectations. The former is provider-driven, prescriptive and less flexible; the latter is collaborative, inquisitive and empowering. In Aligning Expectations, patients and providers express humility and openness, communicate in the language of ask and listen, and view education as empowering. Patients and providers described barriers and facilitators to SDM in community rehabilitation. Facilitators included geography influencing context and connections; consistent, patient-specific messaging; patient lifestyle, capacity and perceived outlook; provider confidence, experience and perceived independence; provider training; and perceptions of more time (and control over time) for appointments. SDM barriers included lack of privacy; waitlists and financial barriers to access; provider approach; how choices are framed; and, patient's perceived assertiveness, lack of capacity, and level of deference. CONCLUSIONS:We have found both excellent experiences and areas for improvement for applying SDM in community rehabilitation. We proffer recommendations to advance high-quality SDM in community rehabilitation based on promoting facilitators and overcoming barriers. This research will support the spread, scale and evaluation of a new Model of Care in rehabilitation by the provincial health system, which aimed to promote patient-centred care.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Medication problems among patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) are well documented. Measures to support LTC management include: medicine optimisation services by community pharmacists such as the Medicine Use Review (MUR) service in England, implementation of shared decision making (SDM), and the availability of rapid access clinics in primary care. This study aimed to investigate the experience of patients with LTCs about SDM including medication counselling and their awareness of community pharmacy medication review services. METHODS:A mixed research method with a purposive sampling strategy to recruit patients was used. The quantitative phase involved two surveys, each requiring a sample size of 319. The first was related to SDM experience and the second to medication counselling at discharge. Patients were recruited from medical wards at St. George's and Croydon University Hospitals.The qualitative phase involved semi-structured interviews with 18 respiratory patients attending a community rapid access clinic. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis using inductive/deductive approaches was employed. Survey results were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS:The response rate for surveys 1 and 2 survey was 79% (n?=?357/450) and 68.5% (240/350) respectively. Survey 1 showed that although 70% of patients had changes made to their medications, only 40% were consulted about them and two-thirds (62.2%) wanted to be involved in SDM. In survey 2, 37.5% of patients thought that medication counselling could be improved. Most patients (88.8%) were interested in receiving the MUR service; however 83% were not aware of it. The majority (57.9%) were interested in receiving their discharge medications from community pharmacies. The interviews generated three themes; lack of patient-centered care and SDM, minimal medication counselling provided and lack of awareness about the MUR service. CONCLUSION:Although patients wanted to take part in SDM, yet SDM and medication counselling are not optimally provided. Patients were interested in the MUR service; however there was lack of awareness and referral for this service. The results propose community pharmacy as a new care pathway for medication supply and counselling post discharge. This promotes a change of health policy whereby community-based services are used to enhance the performance of acute hospitals.
Project description:Shared decision making (SDM) and decision aids (DAs) increase patients' involvement in health care decisions and enhance satisfaction with their choices. Studies of SDM and DAs have primarily occurred in academic centers and large health systems, but most primary care is delivered in smaller practices, and over 20% of Americans live in rural areas, where poverty, disease prevalence, and limited access to care may increase the need for SDM and DAs.To explore perceptions and practices of rural primary care clinicians regarding SDM and DAs.Cross-sectional survey. Setting and Participants Primary care clinicians affiliated with the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network.Surveys were returned by 181 of 231 eligible participants (78%); 174 could be analyzed. Two-thirds of participants were physicians, 84% practiced family medicine, and 55% were male. Sixty-five percent of respondents were unfamiliar with the term shared decision making, but following definition, 97% reported that they found the approach useful for conditions with multiple treatment options. Over 90% of clinicians perceived helping patients make decisions regarding chronic pain and health behavior change as moderate/hard in difficulty. Although 69% of respondents preferred that patients play an equal role in making decisions, they estimate that this happens only 35% of the time. Time was reported as the largest barrier to engaging in SDM (63%). Respondents were receptive to using DAs to facilitate SDM in print- (95%) or web-based formats (72%), and topic preference varied by clinician specialty and decision difficulty.Rural clinicians recognized the value of SDM and were receptive to using DAs in multiple formats. Integration of DAs to facilitate SDM in routine patient care may require addressing practice operation and reimbursement.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To describe and measure the shared decision-making (SDM) experience, including goal-setting experiences, from the perspective of patients and providers in diverse community-rehabilitation settings. DESIGN:Prospective, longitudinal surveys. SETTING:13 primary level-of-care community-rehabilitation sites in diverse areas varying in geography, patient population and provider discipline341 adult, English-speaking patient-participants, and 66 provider-participants. MEASURES:Alberta Shared decision-maKing Measurement Instrument (dyadic tool measuring SDM), WatLX (outpatient rehabilitation experience) and demographic questionnaire. Survey packages distributed at two timepoints (T0=recruitment; T1=3 months later). RESULTS:We found that among 341 patient-provider dyads, 26.4% agreed that the appointment at recruitment involved high-quality SDM. Patient perceptions of goal-setting suggested that 19.6% of patients did not set a goal for their care, and only 11.4% set goals in functional language that tied directly to an activity/role/responsibility that was meaningful to their life. Better SDM was clinically associated with higher total family income (p=0.045). CONCLUSIONS:These findings provide evidence for the importance of SDM and goal setting in community rehabilitation. Among patients, lower ratings of SDM corresponded with less recognition of their preferences. Actionable strategies include supporting financially vulnerable patients in realising SDM through training of providers to make extra space for such patients to share their preferences and better preparing patients to articulate their preferences. We recommend more research into strategies that advance highly functional goal setting with patients, and that lessen survey ceiling effects.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Shared decision making (SDM) is a systematic approach aimed at improving patient involvement in preference-sensitive health care decisions. Choosing between surgical or non-surgical treatment for lumbar disc herniation, can be difficult as the evidence of a superior treatment is unclear, which makes it a preference-sensitive decision. The objectives of this study was therefore to assess the degree of SDM and afterwards to develop and test a patient decision aid (PtDA) to support SDM during the clinical encounter between surgeon and patient, when patients choose between surgical and non-surgical treatment for Lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHODS:The study was conducted in four steps. 1) Assessment of the extent to which SDM was practiced in the spine clinic. 2) Development of a PtDA to support SDM. 3) Testing its usability and acceptability amongst potential users (patients). 4) Pilot-test of its usability in the clinical setting. RESULTS:Results from our small baseline study (n = 40) showed that between a third and two-thirds of the patients reported not being fully engaged in a shared decision. A pre-designed template (BESLUTNINGSHJÆLPER™) was adapted to support the decision about whether or not to have surgery for LDH. Testing the prototype with patients led to minor refinements. A subsequent pilot test of its usability in a clinical setting achieved positive responses from both patients and clinicians. CONCLUSION:Our baseline study demonstrated that SDM was not universally practiced in the clinic. The PtDA we have developed was rated as acceptable and usable by both patients and clinicians for helping those with LDH choose between surgical or non- surgical treatment. This tool now requires further testing to assess its effectiveness.