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.

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.

Physicians approach shared decision-making for sports eligibility decisions heterogeneously.

Background: There is limited data regarding how clinicians operationalize shared decision-making (SDM) with athletes with cardiovascular diagnoses. This study was designed to explore sports cardiologists' conceptions of SDM and approaches to sports eligibility decisions. Methods: 20 sports cardiologists were interviewed by telephone or video conference from October 2022 to May 2023. Qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted with the transcripts. Results: All participants endorsed SDM for eligibility decisions, however, SDM was defined and operationalized heterogeneously. Only 6 participants specifically referenced eliciting patient preferences during SDM. Participants described variable roles for the physician in SDM and variable views on athletes' understanding, perception, and tolerance of risk. Participants thresholds for prohibitive annual risk of sudden cardiac death ranged from <1 % to >10 %. Conclusions: These findings reinforce the general acceptance of SDM for sports eligibility decisions and highlight the need to better understand this process and identify the most effective approach for operationalization.

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.

Institutional Review Boards' Assessment of Local Context: A Mixed Methods Study.

The nature of the review of local context by institutional review boards (IRBs) is vague. Requirements for single IRB review of multicenter trials create a need to better understand interpretation and implementation of local-context review and how to best implement such reviews centrally. We sought a pragmatic understanding of IRB local-context review by exploring stakeholders' attitudes and perceptions. Semistructured interviews with 26 IRB members and staff members, institutional officials, and investigators were integrated with 80 surveys of similar stakeholders and analyzed with qualitative theme-based text analysis and descriptive statistical analysis. Stakeholders described what they considered to be local context, the value of local-context review, and key processes used to implement review of local context in general and for emergency research conducted with an exception from informed consent. Concerns and potential advantages of centralized review of local context were expressed. Variability in perspectives suggests that local-context review is not a discrete process, which presents opportunities for defining pathways for single IRB review.

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.

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.

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.

Patients' Perspectives Regarding Generator Exchanges of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is mandated for patients receiving primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Less attention has been paid to generator exchange decisions, although at the time of generator exchange, patients' risk of sudden cardiac death, risk of procedural complications, quality of life, or prognosis may have changed. This study was designed to explore how patients make ICD generator exchange decisions. METHODS: Emory Healthcare patients with primary prevention ICDs implanted from 2013 to 2021 were recruited to complete in-depth interviews exploring perspectives regarding generator exchanges. Interviews were conducted in 2021. Transcribed interviews were qualitatively coded using multilevel template analytic methods. To investigate benefit thresholds for pursuing generator exchanges, patients were presented standard-gamble type hypothetical scenarios where their ICD battery was depleted but their 5-year risk of sudden cardiac death at that time varied (10%, 5%, and 1%). RESULTS: Fifty patients were interviewed; 18 had a prior generator exchange, 16 had received ICD therapy, and 17 had improved left ventricular ejection fraction. As sudden cardiac death risk decreased from 10% to 5% to 1%, the number of participants willing to undergo a generator exchange decreased from 48 to 42 to 33, respectively. Responses suggest that doctor's recommendations are likely to substantially impact patients' decision-making. Other drivers of decision-making included past experiences with ICD therapy and device implantation, as well as risk aversion. Therapeutic inertia and misconceptions about ICD therapy were common and represent substantive barriers to effective shared decision-making in this context. CONCLUSIONS: Strong defaults may exist to continue therapy and exchange ICD generators. Updated risk stratification may facilitate shared decision-making and reduce generator exchanges in very low-risk patients, especially if these interventions are directed toward clinicians. Interventions targeting phenomena such as therapeutic inertia may be more impactful and warrant exploration in randomized trials.

Trend in Clinical Trial Participation During COVID-19: A Secondary Analysis of the I-SPY COVID Clinical Trial.

To analyze the temporal trend in enrollment rates in a COVID-19 platform trial during the first three waves of the pandemic in the United States. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from the I-SPY COVID randomized controlled trial (RCT). SETTING: Thirty-one hospitals throughout the United States. PATIENTS: Patients who were approached, either directly or via a legally authorized representative, for consent and enrollment into the I-SPY COVID RCT. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,338 patients approached for the I-SPY COVID trial from July 30, 2020, to February 17, 2022, the number of patients who enrolled (n = 1,063) versus declined participation (n = 275) was used to calculate monthly enrollment rates. Overall, demographic and baseline clinical characteristics were similar between those who enrolled versus declined. Enrollment rates fluctuated over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, but there were no significant trends over time (Mann-Kendall test, p = 0.21). Enrollment rates were also comparable between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, age, sex, region of residence, COVID-19 severity of illness, and vaccination status were not significantly associated with the decision to decline consent. CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of the I-SPY COVID clinical trial, there was no significant association between the enrollment rate and time period or vaccination status among all eligible patients approached for clinical trial participation. Additional studies are needed to better understand whether the COVID-19 pandemic has altered clinical trial participation and to develop strategies for encouraging participation in future COVID-19 and critical care clinical trials.

Deciding Whether to Take Sacubitril/Valsartan: How Cardiologists and Patients Discuss Out-of-Pocket Costs.

Background Out-of-pocket costs have significant implications for patients with heart failure and should ideally be incorporated into shared decision-making for clinical care. High out-of-pocket cost is one potential reason for the slow uptake of newer guideline-directed medical therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This study aims to characterize patient-cardiologist discussions involving out-of-pocket costs associated with sacubitril/valsartan during the early postapproval period. Methods and Results We conducted content analysis on 222 deidentified transcripts of audio-recorded outpatient encounters taking place between 2015 and 2018 in which cardiologists (n=16) and their patients discussed whether to initiate, continue, or discontinue sacubitril/valsartan. In the 222 included encounters, 100 (45%) contained discussions about cost. Cost was discussed in a variety of contexts: when sacubitril/valsartan was initiated, not initiated, continued, and discontinued. Of the 97 cost conversations analyzed, the majority involved isolated discussions about insurance coverage (64/97 encounters; 66%) and few addressed specific out-of-pocket costs or affordability (28/97 encounters; 29%). Discussion of free samples of sacubitril/valsartan was common (52/97 encounters; 54%), often with no discussion of a longer-term plan for addressing cost. Conclusions Although cost conversations were somewhat common in patient-cardiologist encounters in which sacubitril/valsartan was discussed, these conversations were generally superficial, rarely addressing affordability or cost-value judgments. Cardiologists frequently provided patients with a course of free sacubitril/valsartan samples without a plan to address the cost after the samples ran out.

Research recruitment through the patient portal: perspectives of community focus groups in Seattle and Atlanta.

Objective: Research recruitment through patient portals (ie, patient-facing, web-based clinical interfaces) has the potential to be effective, efficient, and inclusive, but best practices remain undefined. We sought to better understand how patients view this recruitment approach. Materials and Methods: We conducted 6 focus groups in Atlanta, GA and Seattle, WA with members of patient advisory committees and the general public. Discussions addressed acceptability of patient portal recruitment and communication preferences. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using deductive and inductive codes. Iterative team discussions identified major themes. Results: Of 49 total participants, 20 were patient advisory committee members. Participants' mean age was 49 (range 18-74); 59% identified as non-Hispanic White and 31% as Black/African American. Participants were supportive of patient portal recruitment and confident that messages were private and legitimate. Participants identified transparency and patient control over whether and how to participate as essential features. Concerns included the frequency of research messages and the ability to distinguish between research and clinical messages. Participants also discussed how patient portal recruitment might affect diversity and inclusion. Discussion: Focus group participants generally found patient portal recruitment acceptable and perceived it as secure and trustworthy. Transparency, control, and attention to inclusiveness were identified as key considerations for developing best practices. Conclusion: For institutions implementing patient portal recruitment programs, continued engagement with patient populations can help facilitate translation of these findings into best practices and ensure that implemented strategies accomplish intended goals.