Patient values and preferences on transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis: a systematic review
Open Access
- 29 September 2016
- Vol. 6 (9), e014327
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014327
Abstract
Objective To investigate patients' values and preferences regarding aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis. Setting Studies published after transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) became available (2002). Participants Adults with aortic stenosis who are considering or have had valve replacement, either TAVI or via surgery (surgical aortic valve replacement, SAVR). Outcome measures We sought quantitative measurements, or qualitative descriptions, of values and preferences. When reported, we examined correlations between preferences and objective (eg, ejection fraction) or subjective (eg, health-related quality of life) measures of health. Results We reviewed 1348 unique citations, of which 2 studies proved eligible. One study of patients with severe aortic stenosis used a standard gamble study to ascertain that the median hypothetical mortality risk patients were willing to tolerate to achieve full health was 25% (IQR 25–50%). However, there was considerable variability; for mortality risk levels defined by current guidelines, 130 participants (30%) were willing to accept low-to-intermediate risk (≤8%), 224 (51%) high risk (>8–50%) and 85 (19%) a risk that guidelines would consider prohibitive (>50%). Study authors did not, however, assess participants' understanding of the exercise, resulting in a potential risk of bias. A second qualitative study of 15 patients identified the following factors that influence patients to undergo assessment for TAVI: symptom burden; expectations; information support; logistical barriers; facilitators; obligations and responsibilities. The study was limited by serious risk of bias due to authors' conflict of interest (5/9 authors industry-funded). Conclusions Current evidence on patient values and preferences of adults with aortic stenosis is very limited, and no studies have enrolled patients deciding between TAVI and SAVR. On the basis of the data available, there is evidence of variability in individual values and preferences, highlighting the importance of well-informed and shared decision-making with patients facing this decision. Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD42016041907.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Engaging Patients, Health Care Professionals, and Community Members to Improve Preoperative Decision Making for Older Adults Facing High-Risk SurgeryJAMA Surgery, 2016
- GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelinesBMJ, 2016
- Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk PatientsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2016
- Validity of standard gamble utilities in patients referred for aortic valve replacementQuality of Life Research, 2015
- Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickensBMJ, 2015
- Values and preferences for oral antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: physician and patient perspectivesHealth Expectations, 2014
- Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in High-Risk PatientsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2011
- Percutaneous Transcatheter Implantation of an Aortic Valve Prosthesis for Calcific Aortic StenosisCirculation, 2002
- Preferences for quality of life or survival expressed by patients with heart failureThe Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, 2001
- Aortic StenosisCirculation, 1968