PCI for stable angina: A missed opportunity for shared decision-making.

Authors:
Michael B Rothberg
Michael B Rothberg
Medicine Institute
United States

Cleve Clin J Med 2018 Feb;85(2):105-121

Vice-Chair for Research, Medicine Institute, and Director, Center for Value-Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) continues to be frequently performed for patients with stable coronary artery disease, despite clear evidence that it provides minimal benefit over optimal medical therapy and entails small but not inconsequential risks. Many patients and doctors do not fully understand the risks and benefits of PCI, even when presented with the evidence, and this makes informed consent challenging. The best approach is shared decision-making, with doctor and patient together choosing the best treatment option after considering the evidence and the patient's preferences.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.3949/ccjm.85gr.17004DOI Listing
February 2018
3 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

shared decision-making
8
optimal medical
4
decision-making doctor
4
medical therapy
4
therapy entails
4
entails small
4
approach shared
4
benefit optimal
4
minimal benefit
4
disease despite
4
choosing best
4
despite clear
4
clear evidence
4
doctor patient
4
evidence minimal
4
best approach
4
inconsequential risks
4
benefits pci
4
risks benefits
4
pci presented
4

Similar Publications

Informed Decision Making for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Coronary Disease.

JAMA Intern Med 2015 Jul;175(7):1199-206

Health Decision Sciences, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Importance: Patients with stable coronary disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are frequently misinformed about the benefits of PCI. Little is known about the quality of decision making before angiography and possible PCI.

Objective: To assess the quality of informed decision making and its association with patient decisions. Read More

View Article
July 2015

How cardiologists present the benefits of percutaneous coronary interventions to patients with stable angina: a qualitative analysis.

JAMA Intern Med 2014 Oct;174(10):1614-21

Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Medicine Institute, Cleveland, Ohio.

Importance: Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) attribute greater benefit to percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) than indicated in clinical trials. Little is known about how cardiologists' presentation of the benefits and risks may influence patients' perceptions.

Objectives: To broadly describe the content of discussions between patients and cardiologists regarding angiogram and PCI for stable CAD, and to describe elements that may affect patients' understanding. Read More

View Article
October 2014

A targeted approach to reducing overutilization: use of percutaneous coronary intervention in stable coronary artery disease.

Popul Health Manag 2013 Jun 31;16(3):164-8. Epub 2012 Oct 31.

OptumHealth Care Solutions, Fort Myers, FL 33967, USA.

Overutilization, defined as use of unnecessary care when alternatives may produce similar outcomes, results in higher cost without increased value. Overutilization can be understood by focusing on settings where overuse is obvious. One example is percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in chronic stable angina. Read More

View Article
June 2013

[Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with stable angina pectoris].

Authors:
Victor Legrand

Rev Prat 2015 Mar;65(3):352-6

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) must be considered among stable angina pectoris patients who remained symptomatic despite optimal medical treatment and to improve prognosis of patients with large myocardial lschemia when occurring at low workload. PCI is preferred for single coronary artery stenosis, while CABG is recommended for severe multivessel disease patients, particularly when diabetes is present. There is no simple decisional algorithm, and, for patients with multivessel disease, each situation must be debated within a multidisciplinary decision-making team (Heart Team), taking into consideration risks and benefits of PCI vs CABG, patients' comorbidities and local experience. Read More

View Article
March 2015