Patients' Preferences after Recurrent Coronary Narrowing: Discrete Choice Experiments. / Preferências dos Pacientes após Estreitamento Coronário Recorrente: Experimentos de Escolha Discreta.

BACKGROUND: Selecting the optimal treatment strategy for coronary revascularization is challenging. A crucial endpoint to be considered when making this choice is the necessity to repeat revascularization since it is much more frequent after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). OBJECTIVE: This study intends to provide insights on patients' preferences for revascularization, strategies in the perspective of patients who had to repeat revascularization. METHODS: We selected a sample of patients who had undergone PCI and were hospitalized to repeat coronary revascularization and elicited their preferences for a new PCI or CABG. Perioperative death, long-term death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization were used to design scenarios describing hypothetical treatments that were labeled as PCI or CABG. PCI was always presented as the option with lower perioperative death risk and a higher necessity to repeat procedure. A conditional logit model was used to analyze patients' choices using R software. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients participated, most of them (73.7%) preferred CABG over PCI (p < 0.001). The regression coefficients were statistically significant for PCI label, PCI long-term death, CABG perioperative death, CABG long-term death and repeat CABG. The PCI label was the most important parameter (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Most patients who face the necessity to repeat coronary revascularization reject a new PCI, considering realistic levels of risks and benefits. Incorporating patients' preferences into benefit-risk calculation and treatment recommendations could enhance patient-centered care.

FUNDAMENTO: Selecionar a estratégia de tratamento ideal para a revascularização coronária é um desafio. Um desfecho crucial a ser considerado no momento dessa escolha é a necessidade de refazer a revascularização, uma vez que ela se torna muito mais frequente após a intervenção coronária percutânea (ICP) do que após a cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio (CRM). OBJETIVO: Pretende-se, com este estudo, trazer reflexões acerca das preferências dos pacientes pelas estratégias de revascularização sob a perspectiva de pacientes que tiveram que refazer a revascularização. MÉTODOS: Selecionamos uma amostra de pacientes que haviam sido submetidos à ICP e hospitalizados para refazer a revascularização coronária e elicitamos suas preferências por nova ICP ou CRM. Morte perioperatória, mortalidade a longo prazo, infarto do miocárdio e repetir a revascularização foram utilizados para a construção de cenários a partir da descrição de tratamentos hipotéticos que foram rotulados como ICP ou CRM. A ICP era sempre apresentada como a opção com menor incidência de morte perioperatória e maior necessidade de se refazer o procedimento. O modelo logístico condicional foi empregado para analisar as escolhas dos pacientes, utilizando-se o software R. Valores de p <0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significativos. RESULTADOS: Ao todo, 144 pacientes participaram, a maioria dos quais (73,7%) preferiram a CRM à ICP (p < 0,001). Os coeficientes de regressão foram estatisticamente significativos para o rótulo ICP, mortalidade a longo prazo da ICP, morte perioperatória da CRM, mortalidade a longo prazo da CRM e refazer a CRM. O rótulo ICP foi o parâmetro mais importante (p < 0,05). CONCLUSÃO: A maioria dos pacientes que enfrentam a necessidade de refazer a revascularização coronária rejeitam uma nova ICP, com base em níveis realistas de riscos e benefícios. Incorporar as preferências dos pacientes à estimativa do risco-benefício e às recomendações de tratamento poderia melhorar o cuidado centrado no paciente.

Preferências dos Pacientes após Estreitamento Coronário Recorrente: Experimentos de Escolha Discreta / Patients Preferences after Recurrent Coronary Narrowing: Discrete Choice Experiments

Resumo Fundamento: Selecionar a estratégia de tratamento ideal para a revascularização coronária é um desafio. Um desfecho crucial a ser considerado no momento dessa escolha é a necessidade de refazer a revascularização, uma vez que ela se torna muito mais frequente após a intervenção coronária percutânea (ICP) do que após a cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio (CRM). Objetivo: Pretende-se, com este estudo, trazer reflexões acerca das preferências dos pacientes pelas estratégias de revascularização sob a perspectiva de pacientes que tiveram que refazer a revascularização. Métodos: Selecionamos uma amostra de pacientes que haviam sido submetidos à ICP e hospitalizados para refazer a revascularização coronária e elicitamos suas preferências por nova ICP ou CRM. Morte perioperatória, mortalidade a longo prazo, infarto do miocárdio e repetir a revascularização foram utilizados para a construção de cenários a partir da descrição de tratamentos hipotéticos que foram rotulados como ICP ou CRM. A ICP era sempre apresentada como a opção com menor incidência de morte perioperatória e maior necessidade de se refazer o procedimento. O modelo logístico condicional foi empregado para analisar as escolhas dos pacientes, utilizando-se o software R. Valores de p <0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significativos. Resultados: Ao todo, 144 pacientes participaram, a maioria dos quais (73,7%) preferiram a CRM à ICP (p < 0,001). Os coeficientes de regressão foram estatisticamente significativos para o rótulo ICP, mortalidade a longo prazo da ICP, morte perioperatória da CRM, mortalidade a longo prazo da CRM e refazer a CRM. O rótulo ICP foi o parâmetro mais importante (p < 0,05). Conclusão: A maioria dos pacientes que enfrentam a necessidade de refazer a revascularização coronária rejeitam uma nova ICP, com base em níveis realistas de riscos e benefícios. Incorporar as preferências dos pacientes à estimativa do risco-benefício e às recomendações de tratamento poderia melhorar o cuidado centrado no paciente.

Abstract Background: Selecting the optimal treatment strategy for coronary revascularization is challenging. A crucial endpoint to be considered when making this choice is the necessity to repeat revascularization since it is much more frequent after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Objective: This study intends to provide insights on patients' preferences for revascularization, strategies in the perspective of patients who had to repeat revascularization. Methods: We selected a sample of patients who had undergone PCI and were hospitalized to repeat coronary revascularization and elicited their preferences for a new PCI or CABG. Perioperative death, long-term death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization were used to design scenarios describing hypothetical treatments that were labeled as PCI or CABG. PCI was always presented as the option with lower perioperative death risk and a higher necessity to repeat procedure. A conditional logit model was used to analyze patients' choices using R software. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 144 patients participated, most of them (73.7%) preferred CABG over PCI (p < 0.001). The regression coefficients were statistically significant for PCI label, PCI long-term death, CABG perioperative death, CABG long-term death and repeat CABG. The PCI label was the most important parameter (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Most patients who face the necessity to repeat coronary revascularization reject a new PCI, considering realistic levels of risks and benefits. Incorporating patients' preferences into benefit-risk calculation and treatment recommendations could enhance patient-centered care.

Patients' preferences for coronary revascularization: a systematic review.

AIMS: Current recommendations regarding the best treatment option for coronary revascularization are usually based on composite outcomes that were not selected or weighed with patients thence they may fail in representing patients' preferences adequately. This systematic review aimed to appraise existing literature surrounding stated preference (SP) regarding coronary revascularization. METHODS AND RESULTS: Studies related to SP regarding coronary revascularization were searched on Medline, Embase and Lilacs databases. Two reviewers screened all titles independently, and consensus resolved any disagreements. Of 735 total citations, six studies were included and qualitatively synthesized. Notably, the attributes most often cited in these studies coincided with those already used in clinical trials (death, myocardial infarction, stroke and redo revascularization). Half of the studies analyzed the use of composite endpoints and showed the necessity to review this practice since the attributes are weighed differently, and there is a disagreement between patients and physicians. Also, a large variety of methods were used to elicitate and value the attributes such as rating, ranking, standard gamble, willingness to pay, and discrete choice experiments. CONCLUSION: Despite a large number of studies comparing revascularization treatment efficacy, there are just a few focusing on patients' preferences. The selection of outcomes to be considered in the trade-off between treatment options and how to weigh them properly, taking into consideration patients' preferences, need to be explored in future trials.

Patient and physician preferences for attributes of coronary revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) may face important decisions regarding treatment options, with the "right choice" depending on the relative weights of risks and benefits. Studies performed as discrete choice experiments are used to estimate these weights, and attribute selection is an essential step in the design of these studies. Attributes not included in the design cannot be analyzed. In this study, we aimed to elicit, rank, and rate attributes that may be considered important to patients and physicians who must choose between angioplasty and surgery for coronary revascularization. METHODS: The elicitation process involved performing a systematic review to search for attributes cited in declared preference studies in addition to face-to-face interviews with cardiologists and experts. The interviews were audio-recorded in digital format, and the collected data were transcribed and searched to identify new attributes. The criterion used to finish the data collection process was sampling saturation. RESULTS: A systematic review resulted in the selection of the following 14 attributes: atrial fibrillation, heart failure, incision scar, length of stay, long-term survival, myocardial infarction, periprocedural death, postoperative infection, postprocedural angina, pseudoaneurysm, renal failure, repeat coronary artery bypass grafting, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention, and stroke. The interviews added no new attributes. After rating, we identified significant differences in the values that patients and cardiologists placed on renal insufficiency (p<0.001), periprocedural death (p<0.001), and long-term survival (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Decisions regarding the best treatment option for patients with CAD should be made based on differences in risk and the patient's preference regarding the most relevant endpoints. We elicited, ranked, and rated 14 attributes related to CAD treatment options. This list of attributes may help researchers who seek to perform future preference studies of CAD treatment options.