jueves, 12 de abril de 2012

Chest pain patients educated about risk more likely to opt out of stress test / American Heart Association

Chest pain patients educated about risk more likely to opt out of stress test / American Heart Association

Chest pain patients educated about risk more likely to opt out of stress test

Study Highlights:
  • Researchers designed a “decision aid” (visual patient-education tool) for physicians and patients with chest pain to agree on an evaluation without negatively affecting the results of their health care.
  • Those who used the decision aid were more knowledgeable about heart attack risk and treatment options and were more likely than less aware patients to opt out of stress testing.
EMBARGOED UNTIL 3 pm CT/4 pm ET, Tuesday, April 10
DALLAS, April 10, 2012 — Chest pain patients educated about their future heart attack External link risk and involved in deciding care options were more likely than less-aware patients to opt out of stress testing External link PDF file, according to research in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, an American Heart Association journal.
Chest pain External link PDF file, the second most common reason people seek emergency care at U.S. hospitals, accounts for 8 million patient visits and about $8 billion in healthcare costs annually, researchers said.
“To avoid missing a diagnosis of heart attack, emergency physicians often admit patients to observation units for stress testing, even though patients are at a very low risk for heart attack,” said Erik P. Hess, M.D., M.Sc., lead author of the study and emergency room (ER) consultant at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “This results in false positive test results, unnecessary additional procedures, exposure to radiation and increased cost.”
Hess and colleagues, investigating how care might change if patients were more educated about their health care, designed a decision aid (visual patient-education tool) about care options and 45-day risk of a heart attack.
Then, they studied 204 emergency department chest pain patients being considered for stress testing. Half the patients received the decision aid and half didn’t.
After conducting surveys immediately after the ER visit to test patients’ knowledge and analyze involvement in decision-making, researchers found:
  • Decision-aid patients decided to be admitted to the observation unit for stress testing 58 percent of the time compared to 77 percent for patients in the traditional care group.
  • Patients in the decision-aid group were much more knowledgeable about their heart attack risk and options than those in the traditional care group.
  • The degree of involvement in care decisions in patients who received the decision aid was four times greater than those who didn’t receive the decision aid.
  • Patients in the decision-aid group said the information was clear and helpful, and three of four surveyed said they would recommend it to others.
  • No major adverse heart problems occurred within 30 days of discharge in either group.
“This study suggests that low-risk patients don’t necessarily want extensive testing once a heart attack has been ruled out,” Hess said.
“Informing patients of their risk and engaging them in the decision-making process may enable physicians and patients to work together to choose an approach to evaluation that is more in line with what patients want, without negatively affecting the results of their health care.”
To confirm results of this study conducted in one hospital, Hess said researchers should test the decision aid in many different emergency departments.
“Use of the decision aid requires close collaboration between emergency physicians and cardiologists so patients can receive follow-up care 24 to 72 hours after they leave the emergency room,” Hess said. “So, the use of the decision aid will be more difficult in healthcare settings with less reliable access to outpatient follow-up.”
Co-authors are: Meghan A. Knoedler, R.N.; Nilay D. Shah, Ph.D.; Jeffrey A. Kline, M.D.; Maggie Breslin, M.Des.; Megan E. Branda, M.S.; Laurie J. Pencille, R.N.; Brent R. Asplin, M.D., M.P.H.; David M. Nestler, M.D., M.S.; Annie T. Sadosty, M.D.; Ian G. Stiell, M.D., M.Sc.; Henry H. Ting, M.D., M.B.A.; and Victor M. Montori, M.D., M.Sc. Author disclosures and sources of funding are on the manuscript.
Statements and conclusions of study authors published in American Heart Association scientific journals are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the association’s policy or position. The association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability. The association receives funding primarily from individuals; foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific association programs and events.  The association has strict policies to prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and device corporations are available at www. heart.org/corporatefunding External link.
NR12 – 1052 (CircQ&O/Hess)
Additional resources, including multimedia, are located on the right column.
For Media inquiries: (214) 706-1173
Karen Astle (214) 706-1392; Karen.Astle@heart.org
Bridgette McNeill: (214) 706-1135; Bridgette.McNeill@heart.org
Julie Del Barto (broadcast): (214) 706-1330; Julie.DelBarto@heart.org
For Public Inquiries:  (800) AHA-USA1 (242-8721)

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario