Protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing warfarin with no oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic dialysis: the Danish Warfarin-Dialysis (DANWARD) trial.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation is highly prevalent in patients on chronic dialysis. It is unclear whether anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention is beneficial in these patients. Vitamin K-antagonists (VKA) remain the predominant anticoagulant choice. Importantly, anticoagulation remains inconsistently used and a possible benefit remains untested in randomised clinical trials comparing oral anticoagulation with no treatment in patients on chronic dialysis. The Danish Warfarin-Dialysis (DANWARD) trial aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of VKAs in patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic dialysis. The hypothesis is that VKA treatment compared with no treatment is associated with stroke risk reduction and overall benefit. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The DANWARD trial is an investigator-initiated trial at 13 Danish dialysis centres. In an open-label randomised clinical trial study design, a total of 718 patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic dialysis will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard dose VKA targeting an international normalised ratio of 2.0-3.0 or no oral anticoagulation. Principal analyses will compare the risk of a primary efficacy endpoint, stroke or transient ischaemic attack and a primary safety endpoint, major bleeding, in patients allocated to VKA treatment and no treatment, respectively. The first patient was randomised in October 2019. Patients will be followed until 1 year after the inclusion of the last patient. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Regional Research Ethics Committee (journal number H-18050839) and the Danish Medicines Agency (case number 2018101877). The trial is conducted in accordance with the Helsinki declaration and standards of Good Clinical Practice. Study results will be disseminated to participating sites, at research conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03862859, EUDRA-CT 2018-000484-86 and CTIS ID 2022-502500-75-00.

Evaluation of a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice at four Danish hospitals: a qualitative study of patient perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 'Shared Decision-making and Dialysis Choice' (SDM-DC) intervention with regard to patients' experience and involvement. DESIGN: Semistructured individual interviews and systematic text condensation for data analysis. SETTING: The SDM-DC intervention was implemented and evaluated at four different hospitals in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 348 patients had received the SDM-DC intervention, and of these 29 patients were interviewed. INTERVENTIONS: SDM-DC was designed for patients facing a choice of dialysis modality. The available modalities were haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, either performed by patients on their own or with help from a healthcare professional. The intervention was tailored to individual patients and consisted of three meetings with a dialysis coordinator who introduced a patient decision aid named 'Dialysis Choice' to the patient. FINDINGS: The following were the four main findings: the decision was experienced as being the patient's own; the meetings contributed to the decision process; 'Dialysis Choice' contributed to the decision process; and the decision process was experienced as being iterative. CONCLUSIONS: The patients experienced SDM-DC as involving them in their choice of dialysis modality. Due to the iterative properties of the decision-making process, a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice has to be adapted to the needs of individual patients. The active mechanisms of the meetings with the dialysis coordinator were (1) questions to and from the patient, and (2) the dialysis coordinator providing accurate information about the options. The overview of options and the value clarification tool in the decision aid were particularly helpful in establishing a decision-making process based on informed preferences.