Incorporating the patient perspective: a critical review of clinical practice guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy
- First Online:
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsShared decision making Implantable cardioverter defibrillators Clinical practice guidelines Patient perspective Psychosocial outcomes
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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
- 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.PubMedGoogle 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.Google Scholar
- 33.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2006). Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for arrhythmias.Google Scholar
- 34.Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Cardiac arrhythmias in coronary heart disease. A national clinical guideline, S.I.G. Network, Editor 2007: Edinburgh.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.Google Scholar