Why the study?
Racial disparities in ICD implantation are multifactorial and partly explained by higher refusal rates, prompting evaluation of a video decision support tool for eligible Black patients.
Does an encounter-based video decision support tool increase assent to ICD implantation in Black adults with heart failure eligible for a primary prevention ICD?
Does an encounter-based video decision support tool increase assent to ICD implantation in Black adults with heart failure eligible for a primary prevention ICD?
An encounter-based video decision support tool improved patient knowledge and reduced clinician time but did not increase assent to primary prevention ICD implantation among Black patients with heart failure.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Video tool does not increase ICD assent; confirms knowledge gains without altering decisions in Black adults with HF.
BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation are multifactorial and are partly explained by higher refusal rates. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a video decision support tool for Black patients eligible for an ICD. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial conducted between September 2016 and April 2020. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02819973). SETTING: Fourteen academic and community-based electrophysiology clinics in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Black adults with heart failure who were eligible for a primary prevention ICD. INTERVENTION: An encounter-based video decision support tool or usual care. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the decision regarding ICD implantation. Additional outcomes included patient knowledge, decisional conflict, ICD implantation within 90 days, the effect of racial concordance on outcomes, and the time patients spent with clinicians. RESULTS: Of the 330 randomly assigned patients, 311 contributed data for the primary outcome. Among those randomly assigned to the video group, assent to ICD implantation was 58.6% compared with 59.4% in the usual care group (difference, -0.8 percentage point [95% CI, -13.2 to 11.1 percentage points]). Compared with usual care, participants in the video group had a higher mean knowledge score (difference, 0.7 [CI, 0.2 to 1.1]) and a similar decisional conflict score (difference, -2.6 [CI, -5.7 to 0.4]). The ICD implantation rate within 90 days was 65.7%, with no differences by intervention. Participants randomly assigned to the video group spent less time with their clinician than those in the usual care group (mean, 22.1 vs. 27.0 minutes; difference, -4.9 minutes [CI, -9.4 to -0.3 minutes]). Racial concordance between video and study participants did not affect study outcomes. LIMITATION: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented a requirement for shared decision making for ICD implantation during the study. CONCLUSION: A video-based decision support tool increased patient knowledge but did not increase assent to ICD implantation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thomas et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: