Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Incorporating the patient perspective: a critical review of clinical practice guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy

  • Published:
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are recommended for patients with heart failure and/or ventricular arrhythmias at risk of sudden cardiac death. Guidelines for ICD implantation are derived from robust clinical data. However, critical factors which might influence treatment decisions include patient preferences. We set out to determine how clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) incorporate the patient perspective into supporting decision making about ICDs.

Methods

CPGs on ICD implantation were purposively selected from national and professional bodies in Europe, North America and Australasia. CPGs were then appraised according to three key domains of shared decision making: (a) informing patients about the risks, benefits and consequences known to be important to patients; (b) personalising risks and benefits and (c) involvement of patient (plus family/significant others if desired) in decision making.

Results

Appraisal of six current CPGs found major deficiencies or inconsistencies in guidance. CPGs tended to focus on evidence of device effectiveness, with sparse consideration of other outcomes important to patients such as impacts on quality of life and psychosocial well-being. Little reference was made to involvement of the patient in decision making.

Conclusions

This suggests that embedding shared decision in CPGs will improve the patient-centeredness of ICD treatment by enabling patients to make informed, value-based decisions. Specific recommendations for CPG development include the need for signposting to preference sensitive decision points as well as inclusion of a broader range of outcomes which are known to be important to patients when deciding whether or not to have a device fitted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ, 312, 71–72.

  2. Institute of Medicine. (1990). In M. J. Field & K. N. Lohr (Eds.), Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Stacey, D., Bennett, C. L., Barry, M. J., Col, N. F., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., et al. (2011). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (10): p. Art. No.: CD001431.

  4. Salzburg Global Seminar. (2011). Salzburg statement on shared decision making. BMJ, 342, d1745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Towle, A., & Godolphin, W. (1999). Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. BMJ, 319, 766.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Connor, A. M., Wennberg, J. E., Legare, F., Llewellyn-Thomas, H. A., Moulton, B. W., & Sepucha, K. R. (2007). Toward the “tipping point”: decision aids and informed patient choice. Health Affairs (Millwood), 26, 716–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Elwyn, G., Laitner, S., Coulter, A., Walker, E., Watson, P., & Thomson, R. (2010). Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ, 341, c5146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Godolphin, W. (2003). The role of risk communication in shared decision making. BMJ, 327, 692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Edwards, A., Elwyn, G., Atwell, C., Hood, K., Houston, H., & Kinnersley, P. (2004). Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomised trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Family Practice, 21, 347–354.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Alonso-Coello, P., Montori, V. M., Sola, I., Schünemann, H. J., Devereaux, P. J., Charelese, C., et al. (2008). Values and preferences in oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation, physicians’ and patients’ perspectives: protocol for a two-phase study. BMC Health Services Research, 8, 221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grol, R., & van Weel, C. (2009). Getting a grip on guidelines: how to make them more relevant for practice. British Journal of General Practice, 59, 322–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Weijden, T., Légaré, F., Boivin, A., Burgers, J. S., van Veenendaal, H., Stiggelbout, A. M., et al. (2010). How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol. Implementation Science, 5, 10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomson, R. G., Parkin, D., Eccles, M., Sudlow, M., & Robinson, A. (2000). Decision analysis and guidelines for anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Lancet, 355, 956–962.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Boivin, A., Currie, K., Fervers, B., Gracia, J., James, M., Marshall, C., et al. (2010). Patient and public involvement in clinical guidelines: international experiences and future perspectives. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 19(5), e22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2009). Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment. (NICE clinical guideline no. 80). London: National Collaborating Centre for Cancer.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Galla, J. H. (2000). Clinical practice guideline on shared decision-making in the appropriate initiation of and withdrawal from dialysis. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 11, 1340–1342.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Brindis, R., & Spertus, J. A. (2010). Employing shared decision-making models to improve care and patient value: a cardiovascular professional initiative. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 56(24), 2046–2048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Walsh, M. N., Bove, A. A., Cross, R. R., Ferdinand, K. C., Forman, D. E., Freeman, A. M., et al. (2012). ACCF 2012 health policy statement on patient-centred care in cardiovascular medicine. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 59(23), 2125–2143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Allen, L. A., Stevenson, L. W., Grady, K. L., Goldstein, N. E., Matlock, D. D., Arnold, R. M., et al. (2012). Decision making in advanced heart failure: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 125(15), 1928–1952.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Redhead, A. P., Turkington, D., Rao, S., Tynan, M. M., & Bourke, J. P. (2010). Psychopathology in postinfarction patients implanted with cardioverter-defibrillators for secondary prevention. A cross-sectional, case-controlled study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 69(6), 555–563.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mark, D. B., Anstrom, K. J., Sun, J. L., Clapp-Channing, N. E., Tsiatis, A. A., Davidson-Ray, L., et al. (2008). Sudden cardiac death in heart failure trial investigators, quality of life with defibrillator therapy or amiodarone in heart failure. New England Journal of Medicine, 359, 999–1008.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nazarian, S., Maisel, W. H., Miles, J. S., Tsang, S., Stevenson, L. W., & Stevenson, W. G. (2005). Impact of implantable cardioverter defibrillators on survival and recurrent hospitalization in advanced heart failure. American Heart Journal, 150, 955–960.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Matlock, D. D., Nowels, C. T., Masoudi, F. A., Sauer, W. H., Bekelman, D. B., Main, D. S., et al. (2011). Patient and cardiologist perceptions on decision making for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a qualitative study. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 34(12), 1634–1644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Langseth, M. S., Shepherd, E., Thomson, R., & Lord, S. (2012). Quality of decision making is related to decision outcome for patients with cardiac arrhythmia. Patient Education and Counseling, 87, 49–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stevenson, L. W., & Desai, A. S. (2006). Selecting patients for discussion of the ICD as primary prevention for sudden death in heart failure. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 12(6), 407–412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Al-Khatib, S., Hellkamp, A., Curtis, J., Mark, D., Peterson, E., Sanders, G. D., et al. (2011). Non-evidence-based ICD implantations in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association, 305(1), 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Matlock, D. D., Peterson, P. N., Heidenreich, P. A., Lucas, F. L., Malenka, D. J., Wang, Y., et al. (2011). Regional variation in the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention: results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 4(1), 114–121.

    Google Scholar 

  28. McComb, J. M., Plummer, C. J., Cunningham, M. W., & Cunningham, D. (2009). Inequity of access to implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in England: possible causes of geographical variation in implantation rates. Europace, 11, 1308–1312.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Epstein, A. E., DiMarco, J. P., Ellenbogen, K. A., Estes, N. A. 3rd, Freedman, R. A., Gettes, L. S., et al. (2008). ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities. Circulation, 117(21), e350–e408.

  30. Tang, A. S., Ross, H., Simpson, C. S., Mitchell, L. B., Dorian, P., Goeree, R., et al. (2005). Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society position paper on implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in Canada. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 21(Suppl A), 11A–18A.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hauer, R. N. W., Aliot, E., Block, M., Capucci, A., Lüderitz, B., Santini, M., et al. (2001). Indications for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Study Group on Guidelines on ICDs of the Working Group on Arrhythmias and the Working Group on Cardiac Pacing of the European Society of Cardiology. European Heart Journal, 22, 1074–1081.

    Google Scholar 

  32. National Heart Foundation of Australia and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (Chronic Heart Failure Guidelines Expert Writing Panel), Guidelines for the prevention, detection and management of chronic heart failure in Australia. Updated October 2011.

  33. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2006). Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for arrhythmias.

  34. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Cardiac arrhythmias in coronary heart disease. A national clinical guideline, S.I.G. Network, Editor 2007: Edinburgh.

  35. Dickstein, K., Vardas, P. E., Auricchio, A., Daubert, J.-C., Linde, C., McMurray, J., et al. (2010). Focused update of ESC guidelines on device therapy in heart failure. European Heart Journal, 31(21), 2677–2687.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pettit, S. J., Browne, S., Hogg, K. J., Connelly, D. T., Gardner, R. S., May, C. R., et al. (2012). ICDs in end-stage heart failure. BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care, 2, 94–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. O'Connor, A. M., Légaré, F., & Stacey, D. (2003). Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids. BMJ, 327, 736–740.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Van Den Broek, K. C., Habibović, M., & Pedersen, S. S. (2010). Emotional distress in partners of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: a systematic review and recommendations for future research. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 33(12), 1442–1450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sears, S. F., & Conti, J. B. (2002). Quality of life and psychological functioning of ICD patients. Heart, 87, 488–493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sears, S. F., Hauf, J. D., Kirian, K., Hazelton, G., & Conti, J. B. (2011). Posttraumatic stress and the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patient: what the electrophysiologist needs to know. Circulation. Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, 4, 242–250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mühlhauser, I. (2010). From authority recommendations to fact-sheets—a future for guidelines. Diabetologia, 53, 2285–2288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hegarty, K., Gunn, J., Blashki, G., Griffiths, F., Dowell, T., & Kendrick, T. (2009). How could depression guidelines be made more relevant and applicable to primary care? British Journal of General Practice, 59, 322–328.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Johansson, I., & Strömberg, A. (2010). Experiences of driving and driving restrictions in recipients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator—the patient perspective. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 25(6), E1–E10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lemon, J., Edelman, S., & Kirkness, A. (2004). Avoidance behaviour in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Heart & Lung, 33, 176–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bostwick, J. M., & Sola, C. L. (2011). An updated review of implantable cardioverter/defibrillators, induced anxiety, and quality of life. Heart Failure Clinics, 7(1), 101–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. van der Weijden, B. A., Burgers, J., Schunemann, H. J., & Elwyn, G. (2012). Clinical practice guidelines and patient decision aids. An inevitable relationship. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(6), 584–589.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Gigerenzer, G. (2002). How innumeracy can be exploited, in Reckoning with risk—learning to live with uncertainty (pp. 201–210). London: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Elwyn, G., O'Connor, A. M., Bennett, C., Newcombe, R. G., Politi, M., Durand, M., et al. (2009). Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi). PLoS One, 4(3), e4705.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Stiggelbout, A. M., van der Weijden, T., De Wit, M. P. T., Frosch, D., Légaré, F., Montori, V. M., et al. (2012). Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare. BMJ, 344, e256.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Option grids. Available from: http://www.optiongrid.co.uk/. Accessed 28 Aug 2012.

  51. Joosten, E. A., Defuentes-Merillas, L., de Weert, G. H., Sensky, T., van der Staak, C. P., & de Jong, C. A. (2008). Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 77, 219–226.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Mulley, A. G. Learning from variations to increase value for money in the NHS. Available from: http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/health_variations.html. 5 Aug 2011.

  53. Coulter, A. (1997). Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 2(2), 112–121.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Thomson, R., Murtagh, M., & Khaw, F. M. (2005). Tensions in public health policy: patient engagement, evidence-based public health and health inequalities. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 14(6), 398–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Henry, M. S. (2006). Uncertainty, responsibility, and the evolution of the physician/patient relationship. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 321–323.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Say, R. E., & Thomson, R. (2003). The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions—challenges for doctors. BMJ, 327, 542.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Radina, M. E., Ginter, A. C., Brandt, J., Swaney, J., & Longo, D. R. (2011). Breast cancer patients’ use of health information in decision making and coping. Cancer Nursing, 34(5), E1–E12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Adams, J. R., & Drake, R. E. (2006). Shared decision-making and evidence-based practice. Community Mental Health Journal, 42(1), 87–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK

    Kerry E. Joyce & Richard Thomson

  2. Department of Cardiology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE7 7DN, UK

    Stephen Lord & Janet M. McComb

  3. Academic Office 1, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 12631 E 17th Ave, Campus Box B-180, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    Daniel D. Matlock

Authors
  1. Kerry E. Joyce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen Lord
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel D. Matlock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Janet M. McComb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richard Thomson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerry E. Joyce.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Joyce, K.E., Lord, S., Matlock, D.D. et al. Incorporating the patient perspective: a critical review of clinical practice guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 36, 185–197 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-012-9762-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-012-9762-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation