Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC).

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

Integrating Cost into Shared Decision-Making for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (POCKET-COST-HF): A Trial Providing Out-of-Pocket Costs for Heart Failure Medications during Clinical Encounters.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) often entails substantial out-of-pocket costs that can vary appreciably between patients. This has raised concerns regarding financial toxicity, equity, and adherence to medical therapy. In spite of these concerns, cost discussions in the HFrEF population appear to be rare, partly because out-of-pocket costs are generally unavailable during clinical encounters. In this trial, out-of-pocket cost information is given to patients and clinicians during outpatient encounters with the aim to assess the impact of providing this information on medication discussions and decisions. HYPOTHESIS: Cost-informed decision-making will be facilitated by providing access to patient-specific out-of-pocket cost estimates at the time of clinical encounter. DESIGN: Integrating Cost into Shared Decision-Making for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (POCKET-COST-HF) is a multicenter trial based at Emory Healthcare and University of Colorado Health. Adapting an existing patient activation tool from the EPIC-HF trial, patients and clinicians are presented a checklist with medications approved for treatment of HFrEF with or without patient-specific out-of-pocket costs (obtained from a financial navigation firm). Clinical encounters are audio-recorded, and patients are surveyed about their experience. The trial utilizes a stepped-wedge cluster randomized design, allowing for each site to enroll control and intervention group patients while minimizing contamination of the control arm. DISCUSSION: This trial will elucidate the potential impact of robust cost disclosure efforts and key information regarding patient and clinician perspectives related to cost and cost communication. It also will reveal important challenges associated with providing out-of-pocket costs for medications during clinical encounters. Acquiring medication costs for this trial requires an involved process and outsourcing of work. In addition, costs may change throughout the year, raising questions regarding what specific information is most valuable. These data will represent an important step towards understanding the role of integrating cost discussions into heart failure care. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04793880.

Medicare-mandated shared decision making for left atrial appendage closure in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) required a shared decision-making (SDM) interaction, with an "independent" physician, before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). The purpose of this study is to better understand how this requirement is implemented in clinical practice. METHODS: We surveyed LAAC-performing centers. The characteristics of respondent and nonrespondent hospitals were compared using the CMS Provider of Services File for 2017. RESULTS: We received 86 responses out of 269 surveys mailed (32%). Respondent and nonrespondent hospital affiliations were similar: mean hospital size 525 beds, 15% for-profit, and 34% teaching hospitals. Thirty-four respondents (39.5%) stated that the implanting physician conducts some or all of the SDM interactions. The percentage of patients who decide not to undergo LAAC after the SDM interaction was estimated at 8.1%. Out of 72 responses to an open-ended question about the benefit of the SDM interaction, 44 (61%) described the requirement in negative terms, of which most felt the requirement was burdensome for patients and providers. Only 28 respondents (39%) described the requirement in positive or mixed terms. CONCLUSION: In violation of the letter of the CMS policy for LAAC, implanting physicians perform the SDM interaction at nearly 40% of responding hospitals. Most respondents felt the SDM requirement was burdensome for patients. More detailed guidance from CMS on how to comply with the policy may result in better alignment between the intent of the policy and how it is implemented.

Racial Differences in Palliative Care Use in Heart Failure Decedents.

BACKGROUND: Minoritized individuals experience greater heart failure (HF) incidence and mortality rates, yet racial disparities in palliative care (PC) in HF are unknown. METHODS: This retrospective study used electronic medical records to identify adults who were hospitalized at an academic health system and died due to HF between 2012 and 2018. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations between decedents' characteristics and PC consultations (PCCs). RESULTS: Of 1987 decedents, 45.8% (n = 911) received PCCs. Black decedents had 60% greater odds of receiving PCCs (OR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.21-2.11) than whites. Median time from PCC to death was shorter among white than Black decedents (31.2 vs 51.5 days; P = .001). Mean age at death was younger among Black than white decedents (71.3 [14.8] vs 81.8 [12.3]; P < .001) and decedents of "other" races (71.3 [14.8] vs. 80.3 [10.4]; P = .001). Black decedents were more likely than whites to receive inotropes (54.4% vs 42.3%; P < .001) and to be admitted to hospitals (39.5% vs 29.7%; P < .001) and intensive care units in their last month (30.3% vs 18.3%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest greater recognition of palliative-care needs among Black individuals with HF; however, most referrals to PC occur late in the disease trajectory.

Poor Medication Access as a Driver of Excess Heart-Failure Readmissions Among Patients Living in Economically Deprived Neighborhoods.

BACKGROUND: Patients residing in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods experience higher hospital readmission rates after hospitalization for heart failure (HF). The role of medication access in the excessive readmissions in this group is poorly understood. This study explored patients' perspectives on medication access by individuals living in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods who had experienced HF readmission. METHODS: We conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with 25 patients (mean age 61 ± 9 years, 96% Black, 40% women) who were readmitted with acute HF at Emory Healthcare hospitals and were living in highly deprived neighborhoods (top decile of the Social Deprivation Index). Qualitative descriptive analyses of the interviews were performed by using a multilevel coding strategy. RESULTS: Most patients (84%) highlighted medications as a driver of HF readmission. Patients' reported reasons for lack of medication access included medication costs (60%), having access to refills only through an emergency department or hospitalization (36%), limited access to transportation (12%), and limited understanding of medications' role in disease management (12%). CONCLUSION: Lack of access to medications for patients with HF who live in socioeconomically distressed neighborhoods exacerbate excess hospitalizations in this vulnerable population. This study focuses on patients' perspectives and experiences and identifies some potentially high-value areas to focus on in trying to enhance access and adherence to evidence-based therapies.

The ethical value of consulting community members in non-emergency trials conducted with waivers of informed consent for research.

There is growing interest in using embedded research methods, particularly pragmatic clinical trials, to address well-known evidentiary shortcomings afflicting the health care system. Reviews of pragmatic clinical trials published between 2014 and 2019 found that 8.8% were conducted with waivers of informed consent; furthermore, the number of trials where consent is not obtained is increasing with time. From a regulatory perspective, waivers of informed consent are permissible when certain conditions are met, including that the study involves no more than minimal risk, that it could not practicably be carried out without a waiver, and that waiving consent does not violate participants' rights and welfare. Nevertheless, when research is conducted with a waiver of consent, several ethical challenges arise. We must consider how to: address empirical evidence showing that patients and members of the public generally prefer prospective consent, demonstrate respect for persons using tools other than consent, promote public trust and investigator integrity, and ensure an adequate level of participant protections. In this article, we use examples drawn from real pragmatic clinical trials to argue that prospective consultation with representatives of the target study population can address, or at least mitigate, many of the ethical challenges posed by waivers of informed consent. We also consider what consultation might involve to illustrate its feasibility and address potential objections.

Research involving the recently deceased: ethics questions that must be answered.

Research involving recently deceased humans that are physiologically maintained following declaration of death by neurologic criteria-or 'research involving the recently deceased'-can fill a translational research gap while reducing harm to animals and living human subjects. It also creates new challenges for honouring the donor's legacy, respecting the rights of donor loved ones, resource allocation and public health. As this research model gains traction, new empirical ethics questions must be answered to preserve public trust in all forms of tissue donation and in the practice of medicine while respecting the legacy of the deceased and the rights of donor loved ones. This article suggests several topics for immediate investigation to understand the attitudes and experiences of researchers, clinical collaborators, donor loved ones and the public to ensure research involving the recently deceased advances ethically.

Digging Deeper: Understanding Trajectories and Experiences of Shared Decision-Making for Primary Prevention ICD Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making using a decision aid is required for patients undergoing implantation of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). It is unknown how much this process has impacted patients' experiences or choices. Effective shared decision-making requires an understanding of how patients make ICD decisions. A qualitative key informant study was chosen to capture the breadth of patients' experiences making ICD decisions in the context of required shared decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 20 patients referred to electrophysiology clinics for the consideration of primary prevention ICD implantation. Purposeful sampling from a prior survey study evaluating mandated shared decision-making was based on patient characteristics and responses to the initial survey questions. Qualitative descriptive analysis of the interviews was performed using a multilevel coding strategy. Patients' paths to an ICD decision often involved multiple visits with multiple clinicians. However, the decision aid was almost exclusively provided to the patient during electrophysiology clinic visits. Some patients used the numeric data in the decision aid to make an ICD decision based on the risk-benefit profile; others made decisions based on other data or based on trust in clinicians' recommendations. Patients highlighted information related to living with the device as particularly important in helping them to make their ICD decisions. Some patients struggled with the emotional aspects of making an ICD decision. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' ICD decision-making paths poses a challenge to episodic shared decision-making and may make tools such as decision aids perfunctory if used solely during the electrophysiology visit. Understanding patients' ICD decision-making paths, especially in the context of encounters with primary cardiologists, can inform the implementation strategies of shared decision-making help to enhance its impact. Components of decision aids focusing on the experience of living with an ICD rather than probabilistic data may also be more impactful, although the nature of their impact will differ.

The impact of government-mandated shared decision-making for implantable defibrillators: A natural experiment.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandated that patients considering implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death undergo shared decision-making (SDM) using a decision-aid. OBJECTIVE: To observe the impact of the CMS's mandate on core measures of SDM using a natural experiment. RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MEASURES: Patients who underwent implantation of a primary prevention ICD within the Emory Healthcare system between 2017-2019 (pre and post SDM mandate) were surveyed. Survey domains included knowledge about the ICD, decisional conflict, values-choice concordance, and engagement in decision-making. Patients who had an ICD implant after the mandate were also asked about their views of the decision aid (DA). Responses of patients who had ICD implanted prior to the mandate were compared to those after the mandate using either Student t test or Chi-Squared tests. RESULTS: Of 101 patients who completed the survey, 45 had an ICD placed before the mandate and 56 had an ICD placed after. There were no major differences between knowledge, decisional conflict, values choice concordance, or patient engagement. Compared to patients with ICDs placed before the mandate, patients with ICDs after the mandate were more likely to subjectively feel more informed about the benefits of the procedure but were less likely to be able to correctly identify the frequency of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Policy effects to promote SDM that solely focus on a decision-aid may not substantively impact patient centered care.

Experimenting with modifications to consent forms in comparative effectiveness research: understanding the impact of language about financial implications and key information.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent forms are intended to facilitate research enrollment decisions. However, the technical language in institutional templates can be unfamiliar and confusing for decision-makers. Standardized language describing financial implications of participation, namely compensation for injury and costs of care associated with participating, can be complex and could be a deterrent for potential participants. This standardized language may also be misleading in the context of comparative effectiveness trials of standard care interventions, in which costs and risk of injury associated with participating may not differ from regular medical care. In addition, the revised U.S. Common Rule contains a new requirement to present key information upfront; the impact of how this requirement is operationalized on comprehension and likelihood of enrollment for a given study is unknown. METHODS: Two online surveys assessed the impact of (1) changes to compensation for injury language (standard vs. tailored language form) and (2) changes to the key information page (using the tailored compensation language form with standard key information vs. modified key information vs. modified key information plus financial information) on both likelihood of enrollment in and understanding of a hypothetical comparative effectiveness trial. RESULTS: Likelihood of enrolling was not observed to be different between the standard and tailored language forms in Study 1 (73 vs. 75%; p = 0.6); however, the tailored language group had a higher frequency of understanding the compensation for injury process specific to the trial (25 vs. 51%; p < 0.0001). Modifications to the key information sheet in Study 2 did not affect likelihood of enrolling (88 vs. 85 vs. 85%; p = 0.6); however, understanding of randomization differed by form (44 vs. 59 vs. 46%; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that refining consent forms to clarify key information and tailoring compensation for injury language to the nature of the study, especially in the context of comparative effectiveness trials, may help to improve study comprehension but may not impact enrollment.

Patient and Surrogate Postenrollment Perspectives on Research Using the Exception From Informed Consent: An Integrated Survey.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: It is important for researchers interested in trials using the exception from informed consent to understand the views and experiences of enrolled individuals. Previous studies have shown that patient and surrogate attitudes are generally positive. These studies were small and did not include pediatric patients, and interviews were often conducted long after trial enrollment. This study sought to explore attitudes toward exception from informed consent in a larger sample and more contemporaneous setting. METHODS: A 10-item paper-and-pencil survey was integrated into the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial, a randomized trial of 3 treatments for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus in pediatric and adult patients. Primary domains included attitudes toward trial enrollment, exception from informed consent, and community consultation. Simple descriptive statistics, χ2, and Fisher's exact tests were conducted. RESULTS: Of 317 patients and surrogates, 90% agreed with or were neutral about the statement "I am glad that I/my family member was included in the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial research study," whereas 10% disagreed. Twenty-seven percent disagreed with enrollment in the study without prospective consent. Black participants were more likely than white, other race, and unknown-race participants to disagree with enrollment without prospective consent (36% versus 23%, 14%, and 14%, respectively). Participants indicated that patients (81%), their families (65%), and those at risk for seizures (51%) were most important to include in community consultation. CONCLUSION: This study aimed to explore attitudes toward exception from informed consent enrollment among participants at all sites in a large, multicenter exception from informed consent trial. General acceptance of trial enrollment was high; acceptance of exception from informed consent specifically was somewhat lower, especially among black participants. Our findings provide further support for targeted community consultation focusing on individuals with connections to the disease under study. Future research should focus on communication in the postenrollment period, especially with individuals who may have concerns about exception from informed consent.

Partnering With Patients to Bridge Gaps in Consent for Acute Care Research.

Clinical trials for acute conditions such as myocardial infarction and stroke pose challenges related to informed consent due to time limitations, stress, and severe illness. Consent processes should be sensitive to the context in which trials are conducted and to needs of patients and surrogate decision-makers. This manuscript describes a collaborative effort between ethicists, researchers, patients, and surrogates to develop patient-driven, patient-centered approaches to consent for clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction and stroke.Our group identified important ways in which existing consent processes and forms for clinical trials fail to meet patients' and surrogates' needs in the acute context. We collaborated to create model forms and consent processes that are substantially shorter and, hopefully, better-matched to patients' and surrogates' needs and expectations from the perspective of content, structure, and tone. These changes, however, challenge some common conventions regarding consent.

Uninformed refusals: objections to enrolment in clinical trials conducted under an Exception from Informed Consent for emergency research.

Clinical trials in emergency situations present unique challenges, because they involve enrolling individuals who lack capacity to consent in the context of acute illness or injury. The US Department of Health and Human Services and Food and Drug Administration regulations allowing an Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) in these circumstances contain requirements for community consultation, public disclosure and restrictions on study risks and benefits. In this paper, we analyse an issue raised in the regulations that has received little attention or analysis but is ethically complex. This challenge is when to solicit and honour objections to EFIC trial enrolment, including from non-legally appointed representatives. We address novel questions involving whose objections should be honoured, what level of understanding is necessary for objections to be considered valid and how hard investigators should work to offer an opportunity to object. We present a set of criteria that provide conceptual and practical guidance. We argue that objections should be honoured if they undermine one of the key assumptions that allows for the permissibility of EFIC trials: that individuals would likely not object to enrolment based on their values or preferences. We then clarify the practical implications of this approach through examination of three cases of refusal in an EFIC study.

Understanding preferences regarding consent for pragmatic trials in acute care.

BACKGROUND: There has been debate about the role of consent in pragmatic trials comparing qualitatively similar interventions. Consent preferences may differ in acute care contexts, given severe illness, time constraints, and other barriers to consent. In addition, studies have not assessed the impact of disclosing financial considerations as a justification for trials. This study was designed to assess preferences of the general public regarding consent for a pragmatic trial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: This survey was completed using an online, probability-based panel representative of the US population. It incorporated a randomized, experimental (2 × 2) design assessing (1) preference for written consent versus an alternative (notification after enrollment or brief verbal consent) and (2) impact of including cost as a motivating factor for the trial. The survey used a scenario based on a recent pragmatic trial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Primary independent variables were personal preference and recommendation as a member of a review board regarding written consent versus the assigned alternative strategy and personal attitude toward trial enrollment. Descriptive analyses were conducted using post-stratification weights. Regression models were created to examine relationships between demographic variables and consent preference and willingness to enroll. Provision of cost information was incorporated into a regression model to examine its impact on consent preference. RESULTS: The study included 2027 participants. Of those participants, 51.1% versus 45.8% stated a personal preference for written consent versus notification after enrollment; however, 60.0% versus 35.5% preferred brief verbal consent to written consent. Even among respondents stating they would be unlikely to enroll in the trial if asked, more respondents (50.6%) preferred brief verbal consent. The preference for verbal consent was generally shared across demographic categories, although lower educational attainment was associated with reduced acceptance (p = 0.001 for trend). Respondents were more likely to support an alternative to written consent when asked their personal preference than when asked their recommendation as a member of a review board. The provision of cost information did not have a meaningful effect on consent preferences, attitudes toward enrollment, or views about the study. CONCLUSION: Respondents generally supported prospective involvement in enrollment decisions in the setting of acute myocardial infarction and were particularly supportive of brief verbal consent. This support persisted across demographic categories. The finding that individuals were more likely to support alternatives to written consent when asked for a personal preference rather than as a "committee member" suggests that conservative institutional approaches to consent could hinder implementation of more patient-centered approaches. The role of cost transparency in consent discussions warrants further study.

Targeted Consent for Research on Standard of Care Interventions in the Emergency Setting.

OBJECTIVES: There has been significant debate over what consent process, if any, should be used for clinical trials that compare two or more interventions within the standard of care. Some claim that all clinical trials should obtain in-depth research consent because they use subjects to obtain data for the benefit of future patients. Others argue that clinical trials that are limited to interventions within the standard of care do not need to obtain research consent at all. Settling this debate is especially challenging in the emergency setting. The potential for significant morbidity and mortality provides a strong reason to obtain research consent for standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. Yet, the emergency setting also introduces significant barriers to traditional in-depth research consent. The present article considers to what extent a targeted consent process can resolve these tensions. DATA SYNTHESIS: We first identified the ethical goals that are promoted by obtaining consent for standard-of-care research and the barriers to obtaining consent that arise in the emergency setting. We then evaluated whether, despite the barriers, it is possible to develop a targeted consent process that promotes the goals for consent in the context of standard-of-care trials. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted consent offers an ethically appropriate way to obtain consent for many standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. For studies subject to U.S. regulations, and those subject to other regulations that include similar consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure and written form provide a way to satisfy research regulations without blocking valuable studies. For trials that qualify for a waiver of the consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure is preferable to waiving consent, provided a slight delay is consistent with appropriate care, and there is a capacitated patient or surrogate available.

The use of hemodynamic support in massive pulmonary embolism.

Massive pulmonary embolism is life threatening and can present as cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest. We report a case of a 47-year-old male who arrested during his postoperative hospitalization and was found to have a massive pulmonary embolism with bilateral involvement of the pulmonary arteries. Given his profound shock and right ventricular failure, an Impella RP was used to stabilize his acute right ventricular failure while percutaneous embolectomy and thrombolysis was used to treat the pulmonary embolism. The patient underwent the procedure successfully with reduction in vasopressors and thrombus burden and recovery of right ventricular function. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.