A Decision Aid Regarding Treatment Options for Patients with an Asymptomatic Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Randomised Clinical Trial

被引:40
作者
Knops, A. M. [2 ]
Goossens, A. [1 ]
Ubbink, D. T. [2 ]
Balm, R. [2 ]
Koelemay, M. J. W. [2 ]
Vahl, A. C. [3 ]
de Nie, A. J. [4 ]
van den Akker, P. J. [5 ]
Willems, M. C. M. [6 ]
Koedam, N. A. [7 ]
de Haes, J. C. J. M. [8 ]
Bossuyt, P. M. M. [9 ]
Legemate, D. A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Acad Med Ctr, Dept Qual Assurance & Proc Innovat, NL-1100 DE Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Acad Med Ctr, Dept Surg, NL-1100 DE Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] Onze Lieve Vrouw Hosp, Dept Surg, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[4] Red Cross Hosp, Dept Surg, Beverwijk, Netherlands
[5] Med Ctr Alkmaar, Dept Surg, Alkmaar, Netherlands
[6] Flevo Hosp, Dept Surg, Almere, Netherlands
[7] Tergooi Hosp, Dept Surg, Hilversum, Netherlands
[8] Acad Med Ctr, Dept Med Psychol, NL-1100 DE Amsterdam, Netherlands
[9] Acad Med Ctr, Dept Clin Epidemiol Biostat & Bioinformat, NL-1100 DE Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Decision support techniques; Elective surgery; Watchful waiting; INFORMED-CONSENT; REPAIR; RISK; VALIDATION; MORTALITY; MODELS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.04.016
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: Abdominal aortic aneurysm patients tend to be informed inconsistently and incompletely about their disorder and the treatment options open to them. The objective of this trial was to evaluate whether these patients are better informed and experience less decisional conflict regarding their treatment options after viewing a decision aid. Design: A six-centre, randomised clinical trial comparing a decision aid plus regular information versus regular information from the surgeon. Methods: Included patients had recently been diagnosed with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm at least 4 cm in diameter. The decision aid consisted of a one-time viewing of an interactive CD-ROM elaborating on elective surgery versus watchful waiting. Generally, the decision aid advised patients with, aneurysms less than 5.5 cm to agree to watchful waiting, for larger aneurysms the decision aid provided insight into the balance of benefit and harm of surgical and conservative approaches, taking into account age, co-morbidity and size of the aneurysm. The primary outcome was patient decisional conflict measured at 1 month follow-up (Decisional Conflict Scale). Secondary outcomes were patient knowledge, anxiety and satisfaction. Results: In 178 aneurysm patients, decisional conflict scores did not differ significantly between the decision aid and the regular information groups (22 vs. 24 on the 0-100 Decisional Conflict Scale; p = .33). Patients in the decision aid group had significantly better knowledge (10.0 vs. 9.4 out of 13 points; p = .04), whereas anxiety levels (4.4 and 5.0 on a 0-21 scale; p = .73) and satisfaction scores (74 and 73 on a 0-100 scale; p = .81) were similar in both groups. Conclusion: In addition to regular patient-surgeon communication, a decision aid helps to share treatment decisions with abdominal aortic aneurysm patients by increasing their knowledge about the disorder and available treatment options without raising anxiety levels; however, it does not reduce decisional conflict, nor does it improve satisfaction. (C) 2014 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:276 / 283
页数:8
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [1] Community and hospital outcome from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm within the catchment area of a regional vascular surgical service
    Adam, DJ
    Mohan, IV
    Stuart, WP
    Bain, M
    Bradbury, AW
    [J]. JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 1999, 30 (05) : 922 - 928
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1992, MEASURES NEED OUTCOM
  • [3] [Anonymous], COCHRANE DATABASE SY
  • [4] [Anonymous], CONV HUM RIGHTS BIOM
  • [5] [Anonymous], RISKY BUSINESS INDIV
  • [6] The Glasgow Aneurysm Score as a tool to predict 30-day and 2-year mortality in the patients from the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management trial
    Baas, Annette F.
    Janssen, Kristel J. M.
    Prinssen, Monique
    Buskens, Eric
    Blankensteijn, Jan D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2008, 47 (02) : 277 - 281
  • [7] Informed consent for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: The patient's perspective
    Berman, Loren
    Curry, Leslie
    Gusberg, Richard
    Dardik, Alan
    Fraenkel, Liana
    [J]. JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2008, 48 (02) : 296 - 302
  • [8] Comparison of Surveillance Versus Aortic Endografting for Small Aneurysm Repair (CAESAR): Results from a Randomised Trial
    Cao, P.
    De Rango, P.
    Verzini, F.
    Parlani, G.
    Romano, L.
    Cieri, E.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2011, 41 (01) : 13 - 25
  • [9] Risk Models for Mortality Following Elective Open and Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Single Institution Experience
    Choke, E.
    Lee, K.
    McCarthy, M.
    Nasim, A.
    Naylor, A. R.
    Bown, M.
    Sayers, R.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2012, 44 (06) : 549 - 554
  • [10] Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process
    Elwyn, Glyn
    O'Connor, Annette
    Stacey, Dawn
    Volk, Robert
    Edwards, Adrian
    Coulter, Angela
    Thomson, Richard
    Barrat, Alexandra
    Butow, Phyllis
    Barry, Michael
    Mulley, Albert G.
    Sepucha, Karen
    Bernstein, Steven
    Clarke, Aileen
    Entwistle, Vikki
    Feldman-Stewart, Deb
    Holmes-Rovner, Margaret
    Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary
    Moumjid, Nora
    Ruland, Cornelia
    Sykes, Alan
    Whelan, Tim
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 333 (7565): : 417 - 419