Preferences of Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease for Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Background Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) can experience acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with high morbidity and mortality. Early invasive management of ACS is recommended for most high-risk patients; however, choosing between an early invasive versus conservative management approach may be influenced by the unique risk of kidney failure for patients with CKD. Methods and Results This discrete choice experiment measured the preferences of patients with CKD for future cardiovascular events versus acute kidney injury and kidney failure following invasive heart procedures for ACS. The discrete choice experiment, consisting of 8 choice tasks, was administered to adult patients attending 2 CKD clinics in Calgary, Alberta. The part-worth utilities of each attribute were determined using multinomial logit models, and preference heterogeneity was explored using latent class analysis. A total of 140 patients completed the discrete choice experiment. The mean age of patients was 64 years, 52% were male, and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 37 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Across the range of levels, risk of mortality was the most important attribute, followed by risk of end-stage kidney disease and risk of recurrent myocardial infarction. Latent class analysis identified 2 distinct preference groups. The largest group included 115 (83%) patients, who placed the greatest value on treatment benefits and expressed the strongest preference for reducing mortality. A second group of 25 (17%) patients was identified who were procedure averse and had a strong preference toward conservative management of ACS and avoiding acute kidney injury requiring dialysis. Conclusions The preferences of most patients with CKD for management of ACS were most influenced by lowering mortality. However, a distinct subgroup of patients was strongly averse to invasive management. This highlights the importance of clarifying patient preferences to ensure treatment decisions are aligned with patient values.

A Framework to Ensure Patient Partners Have Equal and Contributing Voices Throughout the Research Program Evaluation Process.

PURPOSE OF PROGRAM: Traditionally, peer review was a closed process conducted only by individuals working in the research field. To establish a more integrated and patient-centered approach, one of Canada's largest kidney research networks (Can-SOLVE CKD) has created a Research Operations Committee (ROC) that includes patients as key members. The ROC represents one way for achieving meaningful patient-oriented research (POR). SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Can-SOLVE CKD, a network created as part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR). METHODS: The ROC consists of patients, physicians, scientists, Indigenous partners, experts in research methodology, and a member of Can-SOLVE CKD's operational team. On an annual basis, Can-SOLVE CKD's research teams provide the ROC with a review package, which incorporates information from patient engagement check-in calls and surveys, the project's knowledge translation plan and products, and a progress report written by the project team. The ROC evaluates the review package and provides feedback and recommendations accordingly. KEY FINDINGS: The transparent nature of the process, regular feedback and review, along with an overt accountability and scoring system, has been embraced by both patients and researchers. As a result of the ROC process, the number of patient leads for each project has grown over a 3-year period and more researchers have received POR and cultural sensitivity training. LIMITATIONS: While anecdotal evidence suggests this approach is beneficial for achieving POR, formal mechanisms of evaluation are currently lacking. IMPLICATIONS: This ROC framework ensures patients are active contributors throughout the research process and could be adopted by other organizations to achieve a more patient-centered approach to research.

OBJECTIF DU PROGRAM: L'évaluation par les pairs consiste habituellement en un processus fermé et mené uniquement par des personnes travaillant dans le domaine de la recherche. Pour développer une approche plus intégrée et davantage axée sur les patients, un des plus importants réseaux canadiens de recherche sur les maladies rénales (Can-SOLVE CKD) a créé un comité de gestion de la recherche (CGR) où les patients sont des membres à part entière. Une approche qui vise la conduite d'activités de recherches significatives et davantage orientées vers le patient. SOURCE: Can-SOLVE CKD, un réseau créé dans le cadre de la Stratégie de recherche axée sur le patient (SRAP) des Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada (IRSC). MÉTHODOLOGIE: Le CGR rassemble des patients, des médecins, des chercheurs, des partenaires autochtones, des experts en méthodologie de recherche et un membre de l'équipe d'intervention de Can-SOLVE CKD. Une fois par année, l'équipe de recherche de Can-SOLVE CKD fournit au CGR un dossier d'examen. Ce dossier contient les informations recueillies lors d'appels ou de sondages vérifiant l'engagement des patients, le plan d'application des connaissances du projet et ses résultats, de même qu'un rapport périodique rédigé par l'équipe responsable du projet. Le CGR évalue ce dossier et émet ses commentaires et recommandations. PRINCIPAUX RÉSULTATS: La transparence du processus, la rétroaction et la révision sur une base régulière, de même que les systèmes de responsabilité et de notation ouverts ont été adoptés tant par les patients que par les chercheurs. Grâce à ce processus, le nombre de patients candidats pour chaque projet a augmenté sur une période de trois ans, et davantage de chercheurs ont reçu une formation sur les réalités culturelles et la pratique d'activités de recherche axées sur le patient. LIMITES: Bien que des preuves anecdotiques suggèrent que cette approche soit bénéfique à la conduite de recherches axées sur le patient, des mécanismes formels pour son évaluation manquent toujours. CONCLUSION: Le cadre proposé par le CGR assure une contribution active des patients tout au long du processus de recherche. Ce program pourrait être adopté par d'autres organizations et permettre la réalisation d'activités de recherche davantage axées sur le patient.

Patient and physician perspectives on shared decision-making for coronary procedures in people with chronic kidney disease: a patient-oriented qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart disease face challenging treatment decisions. We sought to explore the perceptions of patients and physicians about shared decision-making for coronary procedures for people with CKD, as well as opinions about strategies and tools to improve these decisions. METHODS: We partnered with 4 patients with CKD and 1 caregiver to design and conduct a qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews and content analysis. Patient participants with CKD and either acute coronary syndrome or cardiac catheterization in the preceding year were recruited from a provincial cardiac registry, cardiology wards and clinics in Calgary between March and September 2018. Cardiologists from the region also participated in the study. Data analysis emphasized identifying, organizing and describing themes found within the data. RESULTS: Twenty patients with CKD and 10 cardiologists identified several complexities related to bidirectional information exchange needed for shared decision-making. Themes identified by both patients and physicians included challenges synthesizing best evidence, variable patient knowledge seeking, timeliness in the acute care setting and influence of roles on decision-making. Themes identified by physicians related to processes and tools to help support shared decision-making in this setting included personalization to reflect the variability of risks and heterogeneity of patient preferences as well as allowing for physicians to share their clinical judgment. INTERPRETATION: There are complexities related to bidirectional information exchange between patients with CKD and their physicians for shared decision-making about coronary procedures. Processes and tools to facilitate shared decision-making in this setting require personalization and need to be time sensitive.

Can the ICF be used as a rehabilitation outcome measure? A study looking at the inter- and intra-rater reliability of ICF categories derived from an ADL assessment tool.

PURPOSE: The categories of the International Classification of Functioning , Disability and Health (ICF) could potentially be used as components of outcome measures. Literature demonstrating the psychometric properties of ICF categories is limited. OBJECTIVE: Determine the agreement and reliability of ICF activities of daily living category scores and compare these to agreement and reliability of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) item scores. METHOD: Two investigators independently reviewed the clinical notes to score the ICF activities of daily living cate-gories, of 100 patients using ICF qualifiers with additional scoring guidelines. The percentage agreement, interrater and intrarater reliability were compared with the matched FIM items scored by a separate set of two investigators using the same methodology. Kappa Statistic was calculated using Med Calc. RESULTS: ICF interrater reliability as indicated by Kappa values ranging from 0.42 to 0.81 was moderate or better for the eleven self care and mobility categories. The language ICF categories and problem solving generally have fair agreement, with Kappa values ranging from 0.21 for receiving verbal messages to 0.44 for basic social interactions. Absolute agreement was above 72% for all categories. Reliability and agreement of the FIM items was generally lower than the corresponding ICF categories. CONCLUSION: The inter-rater and intra-rater reliability and agreement of the ICF activities of daily living categories were comparable or better than the corresponding FIM items. The results of this study provide an indication that the ICF categories could be used as components of rehabilitation outcome measures.

Subacute casemix classification for stroke rehabilitation in Australia. How well does AN-SNAP v2 explain variance in outcomes?

OBJECTIVE: We sought the best predictors for length of stay, discharge destination and functional improvement for inpatients undergoing rehabilitation following a stroke and compared these predictors against AN-SNAP v2. METHOD: The Oxfordshire classification subgroup, sociodemographic data and functional data were collected for patients admitted between 1997 and 2007, with a diagnosis of recent stroke. The data were factor analysed using Principal Components Analysis for categorical data (CATPCA). Categorical regression analyses was performed to determine the best predictors of length of stay, discharge destination, and functional improvement. RESULTS: A total of 1154 patients were included in the study. Principal components analysis indicated that the data were effectively unidimensional, with length of stay being the most important component. Regression analysis demonstrated that the best predictor was the admission motor FIM score, explaining 38.9% of variance for length of stay, 37.4%.of variance for functional improvement and 16% of variance for discharge destination. CONCLUSION: The best explanatory variable in our inpatient rehabilitation service is the admission motor FIM. AN- SNAP v2 classification is a less effective explanatory variable. This needs to be taken into account when using AN-SNAP v2 classification for clinical or funding purposes.

Interrater reliability of functional status scores for patients transferred from one rehabilitation setting to another.

OBJECTIVE: To report the interrater reliability of FIM total score, FIM motor subscore, and FIM cognitive subscore from scoring that occurred in routine clinical practice in 2 closely linked inpatient rehabilitation services in Sydney, Australia. DESIGN: A natural-experiment blind clinical interrater reliability cohort study of the FIM across 2 rehabilitation units. SETTING: This study is set in 2 inpatient rehabilitation units immediately adjacent to each other in southwestern Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: All patients (N=143) who were transferred between the 2 rehabilitation units between August 2006 and October 2007 were included in the study. INTERVENTION: Discharge FIMs were scored by the first unit and an admission FIM was scored independently by the second unit within a few days. The FIM scores were analyzed for agreement and systematic bias. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Intraclass correlation coefficients, kappa statistic, weighted kappa statistic, and Bland-Altman plots were used. RESULTS: There were 143 sets of scores identified. The range of differences between the 2 FIM totals was -32 to 50, between the FIM motor subscores was -22 to 43, and between the FIM cognitive subscores was -14 to 21. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated poor agreement. Few FIM totals were perfectly matched. The intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from .872 for the FIM total to .830 for the cognitive subscales. Values for kappa ranged from -.007 (FIM motor subscore) to .123 (FIM cognitive subscore). Values for weighted kappa ranged from .465 (FIM cognitive subscore) to .521 (FIM total). CONCLUSIONS: There was no systematic scoring bias evident. Intraclass correlation coefficients were high, but tests of agreement demonstrated poor agreement. These findings have implications for the use of the FIM and any patient classification or funding system based on the FIM, especially if poor levels of agreement were found in the presence of all staff being FIM credentialed and standardization of methods of assessment. This study indicates that further investigation of agreement of both FIM totals and FIM item scores in the clinical setting is warranted.

Prophylactic Oral Amiodarone for the Prevention of Arrhythmias that Begin Early After Revascularization, Valve Replacement, or Repair: PAPABEAR: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Atrial tachyarrhythmias after cardiac surgery are associated with adverse outcomes and increased costs. Previous trials of amiodarone prophylaxis, while promising, were relatively small and yielded conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a brief perioperative course of oral amiodarone is an effective and safe prophylaxis for atrial tachyarrhythmias after cardiac surgery overall and in important subgroups. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Double-blind randomized controlled trial of 601 patients listed for nonemergent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and/or valve replacement/repair surgery between February 1, 1999, and September 26, 2003, at a tertiary care hospital. The patients were followed up for 1 year. INTERVENTION: Oral amiodarone (10 mg/kg daily) or placebo administered 6 days prior to surgery through 6 days after surgery (13 days). Randomization was stratified for subgroups defined by age, type of surgery, and use of preoperative beta-blockers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence of atrial tachyarrhythmias lasting 5 minutes or longer that prompted therapy by the sixth postoperative day. RESULTS: Atrial tachyarrhythmias occurred in fewer amiodarone patients (48/299; 16.1%) than in placebo patients (89/302; 29.5%) overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.69; P<.001); in patients younger than 65 years (19 [11.2%] vs 36 [21.1%]; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.94]; P = .02); in patients aged 65 years or older (28 [21.7%] vs 54 [41.2%]; HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.27-0.75]; P<.001); in patients who had CABG surgery only (22 [11.3%] vs 46 [23.6%]; HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.26-0.79]; P = .002); in patients who had valve replacement/repair surgery with or without CABG surgery (25 [23.8%] vs 44 [44.1%]; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.31-0.84; P = .008); in patients who received preoperative beta-blocker therapy (27 [15.3%] vs 42 [25.0%]; HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.34-0.99]; P = .03); and in patients who did not receive preoperative beta-blocker therapy (20 [16.3%] vs 48 [35.8%]; HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.22-0.71]; P<.001), respectively. Postoperative sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias occurred less frequently in amiodarone patients (1/299; 0.3%) than in placebo patients (8/302; 2.6%) (P = .04). Dosage reductions of blinded therapy were more common in amiodarone patients (34/299; 11.4%) than in placebo patients (16/302; 5.3%) (P = .008). There were no differences in serious postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, or readmission to the hospital within 6 months of discharge or in 1-year mortality. CONCLUSION: Oral amiodarone prophylaxis of atrial tachyarrhythmias after cardiac surgery is effective and may be safe overall and in important patient subgroups. Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00251706.