Shared decision-making in atrial fibrillation: navigating complex issues in partnership with the patient

  • Peter A. NoseworthyEmail author
  • Juan P. Brito
  • Marleen Kunneman
  • Ian G. Hargraves
  • Claudia Zeballos-Palacios
  • Victor M. Montori
  • Henry H. Ting


Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important risk factor for stroke. Although anticoagulation is effective in mitigating this risk, many high-risk patients are not anticoagulated in routine practice. Furthermore, as many as 50% of those who are prescribed an anticoagulant stop treatment within a year. This under treatment may be due, in part, to difficulty in navigating difficult decisions about initiating potentially lifelong therapy with significant costs, potential risks, and impact on daily life. To address these challenges, the most recent American guidelines issued a class I recommendation to use shared decision-making (SDM) to individualize patients’ antithrombotic care. The call by the major cardiovascular organizations for SDM is in an effort to improve quality of care by promoting decisions that reflect what is best for an individual patient based on their stroke and bleeding risks, as well as their comorbid conditions and socio-personal context. SDM is readily applicable to current cardiovascular practice, but ongoing work will be needed to determine whether brief, evidence-based, and patient-oriented tools are able to support thoughtful, patient-centered decision-making and, ultimately, improve the rates of appropriate treatment initiation and adherence.


Shared decision-making Atrial fibrillation Stroke Bleeding 


  1. 1.
    Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Blaha MJ, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129:e28–e292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams BA, Honushefsky AM, Berger PB. Temporal trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival of patients with atrial fibrillation from 2004 to 2016. Am J Cardiol. 2017;120:1961–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim MH, Johnston SS, Chu BC, Dalal MR, Schulman KL. Estimation of total incremental health care costs in patients with atrial fibrillation in the United States. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4:313–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haynes RB, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH. Clinical expertise in the era of evidence-based medicine and patient choice. Vox Sang. 2002;83(Suppl 1):383–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lahaye S, Regpala S, Lacombe S, Sharma M, Gibbens S, Ball D, et al. Evaluation of patients’ attitudes towards stroke prevention and bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation. Thromb Haemost. 2014;111:465–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, Ahlsson A, Atar D, Casadei B, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2893–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yao X, Abraham NS, Alexander GC, Crown W, Montori VM, Sangaralingham LR, et al. Effect of adherence to oral anticoagulants on risk of stroke and major bleeding among patients with atrial fibrillation. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(2):pii: e003074.
  8. 8.
    Eckman MH. Decision-making about the use of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant therapies for patients with atrial fibrillation. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2016;41:234–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raptis S, Chen JN, Saposnik F, Pelyavskyy R, Liuni A, Saposnik G. Aversion to ambiguity and willingness to take risks affect therapeutic decisions in managing atrial fibrillation for stroke prevention: results of a pilot study in family physicians. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:1533–1539. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacobs MS, Schouten JF, de Boer PT, Hoffmann M, Levin LA, Postma MJ. Secondary adherence to non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation in Sweden and the Netherlands. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34(10):1839–1847. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Obamiro KO, Chalmers L, Lee K, Bereznicki BJ, Bereznicki LR. Adherence to oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: an Australian survey. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2018;23:337–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, Calkins H, Cigarroa JE, Cleveland JC Jr, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:e1–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kunneman M, Montori VM, Castaneda-Guarderas A, Hess EP. What is shared decision making? (and what it is not). Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23:1320–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kunneman M, Henselmans I, van Laarhoven HWM et al. Shared decision-making for good clinical care: better, but not easier. NEJM Catalyst. 2017. Accessed 27 Aug 2018.
  15. 15.
    Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH, De Haes JC. Shared decision making: concepts, evidence, and practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98:1172–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elwyn G, Durand MA, Song J, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;359:j4891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Montori VM, Kunneman M, Brito JP. Shared decision making and improving health care: the answer is not in. JAMA. 2017;318:617–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O'Neill ES, Grande SW, Sherman A, Elwyn G, Coylewright M. Availability of patient decision aids for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Am Heart J. 2017;191:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hargraves I, LeBlanc A, Shah ND, Montori VM. Shared decision making: the need for patient-clinician conversation, not just information. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35:627–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kunneman M, Branda ME, Noseworthy PA, Linzer M, Burnett B, Dick S, et al. Shared decision making for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18:443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Legare F, Stacey D, Briere N, et al. A conceptual framework for interprofessional shared decision making in home care: protocol for a feasibility study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Knowledge and Evaluation Research UnitMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart Rhythm Section, Cardiovascular DiseasesMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care DeliveryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  4. 4.Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of MedicineMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  5. 5.Department of Cardiovascular MedicineMayo ClinicJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations