Cited 12 times since 2015 (2.2 per year) source: EuropePMC Open heart, Volume 2, Issue 1, 08 April 2015, Pages e000237 Prosthetic aortic valve selection: current patient experience, preferences and knowledge. Korteland NM, Bras FJ, van Hout FM, Kluin J, Klautz RJ, Bogers AJ, Takkenberg JJ

Objective

Current clinical practice guidelines advocate shared decision-making (SDM) in prosthetic valve selection. This study assesses among adult patients accepted for aortic valve replacement (AVR)

(1) experience with current clinical decision-making regarding prosthetic valve selection, (2) preferences for SDM and risk presentation and (3) prosthetic valve knowledge and numeracy.

Methods

In a prospective multicentre cohort study, AVR patients were surveyed preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively.

Results

132 patients (89 males/43 females; mean age 67 years (range 23-86)) responded preoperatively. Decisional conflict was observed in 56% of patients, and in 25% to such an extent that it made them feel unsure about the decision. 68% wanted to be involved in decision-making, whereas 53% agreed that they actually were. 69% were able to answer three basic knowledge questions concerning prosthetic valves correctly. 56% were able to answer three basic numeracy questions correctly. Three months postsurgery, 90% (n=110) were satisfied with their aortic valve prosthesis, with no difference between mechanical and bioprosthetic valve recipients.

Conclusions

In current clinical practice, many AVR patients experience decisional conflict and suboptimal involvement in prosthetic valve selection, and exhibit impaired knowledge concerning prosthetic valves and numeracy. Given the broad support for SDM among AVR patients and the obvious need for understandable information, to-be-developed tools to support SDM in the setting of prosthetic valve selection will help to improve quality of decision-making, better inform and actively involve patients, and reduce decisional conflict.

Trial registration number

NTR3618.

Keywords: Quality Of Care And Outcomes

Open Heart. 2015 Apr;2(1):e000237