The end-of-study patient survey: methods influencing response rate in the AVID Trial.

Patient surveys are commonly distributed at the end of a multicenter clinical trial. This Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) substudy prospectively explored the relationship between methods used in distributing a survey and the quantity of responses received. AVID was a multicenter, randomized trial comparing survival in arrhythmia patients treated with antiarrhythmic drugs versus implantable defibrillators. At study termination, a patient satisfaction survey was mailed to the 664 surviving participants. Questions included reasons for study participation, study benefits and problems and quality of care. Survey mailings were stratified by four factors in a 2x2x2x2 factorial design: delivery mode (overnight vs. regular mail), certificate of appreciation, timing of administration ("early" vs. "late") and cover letter signed by a physician versus coordinator. Patients were randomly assigned to received one of 16 combinations of these four factors. Clinical characteristics and response rates were evaluated. Patients were more likely to return surveys delivered by overnight mail (75% vs. 68%, p=0.04), with no certificate of appreciation enclosed (75% vs. 68%, p=0.05) and administered close to the time of study closeout (79% vs. 72%, p=0.085). Compared to the 184 nonrespondents, the 456 (71%) respondents were older, Caucasian, lived with others, were high school graduates and less likely to have Medicare/Medicaid or HMO insurance (p<0.03). Physician recommendation was the most common reason cited for trial participation. Main benefits included increased knowledge of their medical condition and improved health. Reported problems included parking, transportation and excess clinic wait time. This randomized study demonstrated that methods of patient survey distribution affect the survey return rate. Additional studies should explore mechanisms for maximizing return rates.

Factors determining ICD implantation in drug therapy patients after termination of antiarrythmics versus implantable defibrillators trial.

Because of a significant survival benefit in the defibrillator arm of the Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillator (AVID) Trial, patients in the antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) arm were advised to undergo ICD implantation. Despite this recommendation, ICD implantation in AAD patients was variable, with a large number of patients not undergoing ICD implantation. Patients were grouped by those who had been on AAD < 1 year (n = 111) and those on AAD > 1 year (n = 223). Multiple clinical and socioeconomic factors were evaluated to identify those who might be associated with a decision to implant an ICD. The primary reason for patients not undergoing ICD implantation was collected, as well as reasons for a delayed implantation, occurring later than 3 months from study termination. Of 111 patients on AAD for less than 1 year, 53 received an ICD within 3 months compared to 40/223 patients on AAD for more than 1 year (P < 0.001). Patient refusal was the most common reason to not implant an ICD in patients on drug < 1 year; physician recommendation against implantation was the most common in patients on drug > 1 year. Multivariate analysis showed ICD recipients on AAD < 1 year were more likely to be working and have a history of myocardial infarction (MI), while those on AAD > 1 year were more likely to be working, have a history of MI and ventricular fibrillation, and less likely to have experienced syncope, as compared to those who did not get an ICD. Having private insurance may have played a role in younger patients receiving an ICD.