search
Back to results

PCORI-1310-06998 Trial of a Decision Support Intervention for Patients and Caregivers Offered Destination Therapy Heart Assist Device (DECIDE-LVAD)

Primary Purpose

Heart Failure, Heart-assist Devices

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
DT LVAD Decision Support Intervention
Sponsored by
University of Colorado, Denver
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional health services research trial for Heart Failure focused on measuring heart failure, heart-assist devices, decision making, decision support techniques, hospice care, palliative care, caregivers

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Adult patients who have advanced heart failure and are being evaluated for DT LVAD
  • Caregivers of patients who are being evaluated for DT LVAD

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Under 18 years of age
  • Non-English Speaking
  • Unable to consent
  • Prisoner
  • Already implanted with DT LVAD

Sites / Locations

  • University of Colorado School of Medicine
  • St. Vincent Indianapolis Hospital
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital
  • Mayo Clinic
  • Washington University School of Medicine in St.Louis
  • Duke University Medicine

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

No Intervention

Experimental

Arm Label

Control: Usual Care

DT LVAD Decision Support Intervention

Arm Description

Patients and caregivers will receive the current usual education and consent process for DT LVAD at each hospital. This often means viewing consent forms and industry materials.

In the intervention phase of the study, patients and caregivers will receive the new decision support intervention, which consists primarily of decision aid materials about DT LVAD. The standard consent process will also still take place, but will be supplemented with additional decision support.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Reach of Intervention
Reach: The proportion of the target population who participate in the intervention. We will assess the percentage of patients and caregivers that receive the pamphlet and video decision aids.
Effectiveness of Intervention: Knowledge
Effectiveness: Assessed based on if the decision support intervention led to a quality decision. Decision quality is defined as "the extent to which the implemented decision reflects the considered preferences of a well-informed patient." By this definition, a decision is "a quality decision" if the treatment chosen is concordant with a knowledgeable patient's values. Decision quality measures consist of 2 domains: knowledge and values. This is part one of the decision quality measure: -Knowledge: DT LVAD knowledge score improvement from Baseline 1 (enrollment) to Baseline 2 (post-education), measured by percentage of score improvement (scale of 0-100%).
Adoption of Intervention
Adoption: The absolute number of settings who are willing to initiate a program. We will assess the number of sites who agreed to be part of the study and who initiate intervention at intervention period.
Implementation of Intervention
Implementation: The extent to which the intervention is implemented as intended. We will assess implementation by surveying the consistency of decision aid delivery by the sites to the enrolled patients.
Maintenance of Intervention
Maintenance: Assessing whether sites decide at the conclusion of the study to maintain, modify, or discontinue a program. We will assess maintenance by counting the number of sites who continue the intervention after the study enrollment period has ended.
Effectiveness of Intervention: Values-Choice Concordance
Effectiveness: Assessed based on if the decision support intervention led to a quality decision (see "Knowledge" outcome measure for full description). This is part two of the decision quality measure: -Values: Concordance between patients' and caregivers' stated values and their treatment choice at 1-Month. Values measured on a Likert scale of 1-10, with 1 being "Do everything I can to live longer, even if that means having major surgery and being dependent on a machine" and 10 being "Live with whatever time I have left, without going through major surgery or being dependent on a machine"; correlated with patient-reported treatment decision of accepted or declined DT LVAD. Measured by kendall's tau correlation coefficient, which ranges 1 to -1, score closer to 1 or -1 shows greater values-choice concordance (a correlation coefficient of 0 means no concordance). Confidence intervals obtained from the distribution after 500 bootstrap samples (2.5, 97.5 percentiles).

Secondary Outcome Measures

Changes in Decision Conflict (Decision Conflict Scale)
Decision Conflict Scale: 16-items, scoring 0-100 with higher score indicating greater decisional conflict.
Changes in Decision Regret (Decision Regret Scale)
Decision Regret Scale: 5-items, scoring 0-100 with higher score indicating greater decision regret.
Changes in Stress and Depression (Perceived Stress Scale; Patient Health Questionnaire-2)
Perceived Stress Scale (collected at Baseline 1 and 6-month follow-up only):10-items, scoring 0-40 with higher score indicating greater stress.; Patient Health Questionnaire-2: 2-items, score of 0-6 with higher score indicating greater depression.
Changes in Quality of Life (EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale [Patients Only])
EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (patients only): 1-item scale, score of 0-100 with 0 being "worst imaginable health state" and 100 being "best imaginable health state".
Changes in Caregiver's Preparedness for Caregiving (Preparedness for Caregiving Scale [Caregivers Only])
Preparedness for Caregiving Scale (caregivers only): 8-items, scoring 0-4 with higher score indicating more preparedness.
Changes in Bereaved Caregiver Satisfaction With End-of-Life Care (Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project - Bereavement Questionnaire [Bereaved Caregivers Only])
Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project - Bereavement Questionnaire (bereaved caregivers only): Score of 0-100 with higher score indicating greater satisfaction.
Changes in Preferences for Control of Medical Decisions (Control Preferences Scale [Patients Only])
Control Preferences Scale (patients only) includes 2 parts: "Preferred" and "Actual" ("Actual" at 1-Month and 6-Month only). Each is a 1-item question with 5-answer options, assessing preferred or actual control in decision making. "Active role" indicated if 1 of first 3 answer options were selected: for "Preferred", those 3 answer options were "I prefer to make the final selection about which treatment I will receive", "I prefer to make the final selection of my treatment after seriously considering my doctor's opinion", or "I prefer that my doctor and I share responsibility for deciding which treatment is best"; for "Actual", answer options were "I made the final selection about which treatment I would receive", "I made the final selection of my treatment after seriously considering my doctor's opinion", or "My doctor and I shared responsibility for deciding which was treatment best for me". The percentage of patients who selected an "active" response option was calculated.
Changes in Illness Acceptance (PEACE Illness Acceptance Measure (Patients Only)
PEACE Illness Acceptance Measure (patients only): 2 part measure: part 1 measures illness acceptances (questions 1-5 of 12-items), scoring 5-20 with higher score indicating greater acceptance of illness; part 2 measures struggle with illness (questions 6-12 of 12-items), scoring 7-28 with higher score indicating greater struggle with illness.
Changes in Family Satisfaction With Patient's Care (Family Satisfaction With Care [Caregivers Only])
Family Satisfaction with Care (caregivers only): The 10-item "Family Satisfaction with Decision-Making around Care of Critically Ill Patients" subscale of the Family Satisfaction with Care in the Intensive Care Unit-24. Scoring for each question was on a scale of 0-100, with 0 indicating low satisfaction and 100 indicating high satisfaction; combined total of all 10 questions was taken for final mean score of 0-100 (higher score indicating higher satisfaction).
Changes in Patient Treatment Status (Medical Record Review (Patients Only)
Medical record review (patients only): Treatment received by 6 months, below numbers reported as number of participants who received an LVAD.

Full Information

First Posted
January 16, 2015
Last Updated
March 2, 2020
Sponsor
University of Colorado, Denver
Collaborators
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT02344576
Brief Title
PCORI-1310-06998 Trial of a Decision Support Intervention for Patients and Caregivers Offered Destination Therapy Heart Assist Device
Acronym
DECIDE-LVAD
Official Title
A Multicenter Trial of a Shared Decision Support Intervention for Patients and Their Caregivers Offered Destination Therapy for End-Stage Heart Failure
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
March 2020
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
May 2015 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
August 2017 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
February 2018 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
University of Colorado, Denver
Collaborators
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is growing rapidly among people dying from end-stage heart failure who are unable to get a heart transplant. These patients elect to live out the remainder of their lives dependent on a partial artificial heart-so-called destination therapy (DT). Although patients may live longer with a DT LVAD, it poses many risks, including stroke, serious infection, and bleeding. Most of these patients have other medical problems that are not fixed by the DT LVAD. Patients must be connected to electricity at all times. A caregiver is required, which often places stress on loved ones. Therefore, the decision whether or not to get a DT LVAD is often an extremely difficult one. Unfortunately, our research shows problems with the way this medical decision is currently being made in hospitals across the United States. Hospitals that offer DT LVAD treatment do not follow a standard process. The forms, pamphlets, websites, and videos used to help patients and families are biased and too difficult for most people to understand. Lastly, this is an emotional and even scary decision for most patients and their families, but the process does not help them deal with these feelings. Using feedback from patients, caregivers, clinicians, the study team made a paper and video decision aid to help people who are offered DT LVAD make this most difficult of decisions. Unlike the information that is now available, our decision aid focuses on options, fears, and the needs of caregivers, is balanced, and is paired with training for doctors and nurses on how to best talk about DT LVAD. The investigators now propose to test the effectiveness and implementation of this intervention. The investigators will apply the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) evaluative framework to a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial across 6 medical centers. Aim 1. Evaluate the Reach and Effectiveness of the DT LVAD shared decision support intervention to improve patient and caregiver experiences. Hypothesis 1a: The intervention will reach 90% of eligible patients. Hypothesis 1b: Post-implementation, patients and caregivers will have improved decision quality (greater knowledge and higher value-treatment concordance). Aim 2. Assess the Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of the DT LVAD shared decision support intervention across multiple providers and settings. Hypothesis 2: The intervention will be: adopted by key personnel; implemented consistently; and maintained after trial completion.
Detailed Description
The investigators plan to test the effectiveness and implementation of a shared decision support intervention for DT LVAD. Six DT LVAD programs from across the U.S. will participate in a stepped-wedge randomized study design. In this design, each site participates in both the control and intervention phase with the timing of the transition randomly assigned. Sites all begin in the control phase, where usual care consists of the current education, decision making, and informed consent process. When sites reach their randomly assigned time to transition to the intervention, their coordinators and key staff will participate in communication training and decision coaching. The pamphlet and video decision aid will be formally integrated into the existing education, decision making, and informed consent process. In both pre- and post-phases, the investigators will enroll patients and caregivers and survey them prior to their DT LVAD decision (baseline) and then at 1 month and 6 months after to determine the interventions effect on decision quality and a host of secondary outcomes. These patient- and caregiver-centered outcomes will be compared within each hospital before and after implementation to determine the effectiveness of the intervention. The investigators will also survey clinicians before, during, and after implementation of the shared decision support intervention. The implementation will be guided using the well-known RE-AIM evaluative framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance). Formal study of the implementation will promote widespread dissemination of this DT LVAD shared decision support.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Heart Failure, Heart-assist Devices
Keywords
heart failure, heart-assist devices, decision making, decision support techniques, hospice care, palliative care, caregivers

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Health Services Research
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
445 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Control: Usual Care
Arm Type
No Intervention
Arm Description
Patients and caregivers will receive the current usual education and consent process for DT LVAD at each hospital. This often means viewing consent forms and industry materials.
Arm Title
DT LVAD Decision Support Intervention
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
In the intervention phase of the study, patients and caregivers will receive the new decision support intervention, which consists primarily of decision aid materials about DT LVAD. The standard consent process will also still take place, but will be supplemented with additional decision support.
Intervention Type
Behavioral
Intervention Name(s)
DT LVAD Decision Support Intervention
Intervention Description
Decision coaching and training of staff prior to intervention, to allow for additional decision support to patients and caregivers considering DT LVAD. Decision aid materials will be used with patients and caregivers.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Reach of Intervention
Description
Reach: The proportion of the target population who participate in the intervention. We will assess the percentage of patients and caregivers that receive the pamphlet and video decision aids.
Time Frame
Baseline 2 (post-education: average 3 days after enrollment)
Title
Effectiveness of Intervention: Knowledge
Description
Effectiveness: Assessed based on if the decision support intervention led to a quality decision. Decision quality is defined as "the extent to which the implemented decision reflects the considered preferences of a well-informed patient." By this definition, a decision is "a quality decision" if the treatment chosen is concordant with a knowledgeable patient's values. Decision quality measures consist of 2 domains: knowledge and values. This is part one of the decision quality measure: -Knowledge: DT LVAD knowledge score improvement from Baseline 1 (enrollment) to Baseline 2 (post-education), measured by percentage of score improvement (scale of 0-100%).
Time Frame
Baseline 1 (enrollment), Baseline 2 (post-education: average 3 days after enrollment)
Title
Adoption of Intervention
Description
Adoption: The absolute number of settings who are willing to initiate a program. We will assess the number of sites who agreed to be part of the study and who initiate intervention at intervention period.
Time Frame
At time of intervention phase start
Title
Implementation of Intervention
Description
Implementation: The extent to which the intervention is implemented as intended. We will assess implementation by surveying the consistency of decision aid delivery by the sites to the enrolled patients.
Time Frame
Baseline 2 (post-education: average 3 days after enrollment)
Title
Maintenance of Intervention
Description
Maintenance: Assessing whether sites decide at the conclusion of the study to maintain, modify, or discontinue a program. We will assess maintenance by counting the number of sites who continue the intervention after the study enrollment period has ended.
Time Frame
6 months after study enrollment end date
Title
Effectiveness of Intervention: Values-Choice Concordance
Description
Effectiveness: Assessed based on if the decision support intervention led to a quality decision (see "Knowledge" outcome measure for full description). This is part two of the decision quality measure: -Values: Concordance between patients' and caregivers' stated values and their treatment choice at 1-Month. Values measured on a Likert scale of 1-10, with 1 being "Do everything I can to live longer, even if that means having major surgery and being dependent on a machine" and 10 being "Live with whatever time I have left, without going through major surgery or being dependent on a machine"; correlated with patient-reported treatment decision of accepted or declined DT LVAD. Measured by kendall's tau correlation coefficient, which ranges 1 to -1, score closer to 1 or -1 shows greater values-choice concordance (a correlation coefficient of 0 means no concordance). Confidence intervals obtained from the distribution after 500 bootstrap samples (2.5, 97.5 percentiles).
Time Frame
Baseline 1 (enrollment) and 1 Month Follow-Up
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Changes in Decision Conflict (Decision Conflict Scale)
Description
Decision Conflict Scale: 16-items, scoring 0-100 with higher score indicating greater decisional conflict.
Time Frame
Baseline 1 (enrollment), Baseline 2 (post-education: average 3 days after enrollment), 1 Month Follow-Up, and 6 Month Follow-Up
Title
Changes in Decision Regret (Decision Regret Scale)
Description
Decision Regret Scale: 5-items, scoring 0-100 with higher score indicating greater decision regret.
Time Frame
1 Month Follow-Up, and 6 Month Follow-Up
Title
Changes in Stress and Depression (Perceived Stress Scale; Patient Health Questionnaire-2)
Description
Perceived Stress Scale (collected at Baseline 1 and 6-month follow-up only):10-items, scoring 0-40 with higher score indicating greater stress.; Patient Health Questionnaire-2: 2-items, score of 0-6 with higher score indicating greater depression.
Time Frame
Baseline 1 (enrollment), 1 month Follow-Up, and 6 Month Follow-Up
Title
Changes in Quality of Life (EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale [Patients Only])
Description
EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (patients only): 1-item scale, score of 0-100 with 0 being "worst imaginable health state" and 100 being "best imaginable health state".
Time Frame
Baseline 1 (enrollment), 1 month Follow-Up, and 6 month Follow-Up
Title
Changes in Caregiver's Preparedness for Caregiving (Preparedness for Caregiving Scale [Caregivers Only])
Description
Preparedness for Caregiving Scale (caregivers only): 8-items, scoring 0-4 with higher score indicating more preparedness.
Time Frame
Baseline 1 (enrollment), 1 month Follow-Up, and 6 month Follow-Up
Title
Changes in Bereaved Caregiver Satisfaction With End-of-Life Care (Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project - Bereavement Questionnaire [Bereaved Caregivers Only])
Description
Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project - Bereavement Questionnaire (bereaved caregivers only): Score of 0-100 with higher score indicating greater satisfaction.
Time Frame
6 Month Follow-Up
Title
Changes in Preferences for Control of Medical Decisions (Control Preferences Scale [Patients Only])
Description
Control Preferences Scale (patients only) includes 2 parts: "Preferred" and "Actual" ("Actual" at 1-Month and 6-Month only). Each is a 1-item question with 5-answer options, assessing preferred or actual control in decision making. "Active role" indicated if 1 of first 3 answer options were selected: for "Preferred", those 3 answer options were "I prefer to make the final selection about which treatment I will receive", "I prefer to make the final selection of my treatment after seriously considering my doctor's opinion", or "I prefer that my doctor and I share responsibility for deciding which treatment is best"; for "Actual", answer options were "I made the final selection about which treatment I would receive", "I made the final selection of my treatment after seriously considering my doctor's opinion", or "My doctor and I shared responsibility for deciding which was treatment best for me". The percentage of patients who selected an "active" response option was calculated.
Time Frame
Baseline 1 (enrollment), 1 Month Follow-Up, and 6 Month Follow-Up
Title
Changes in Illness Acceptance (PEACE Illness Acceptance Measure (Patients Only)
Description
PEACE Illness Acceptance Measure (patients only): 2 part measure: part 1 measures illness acceptances (questions 1-5 of 12-items), scoring 5-20 with higher score indicating greater acceptance of illness; part 2 measures struggle with illness (questions 6-12 of 12-items), scoring 7-28 with higher score indicating greater struggle with illness.
Time Frame
Baseline 1 (enrollment), 1 Month Follow-Up, and 6 Month Follow-Up
Title
Changes in Family Satisfaction With Patient's Care (Family Satisfaction With Care [Caregivers Only])
Description
Family Satisfaction with Care (caregivers only): The 10-item "Family Satisfaction with Decision-Making around Care of Critically Ill Patients" subscale of the Family Satisfaction with Care in the Intensive Care Unit-24. Scoring for each question was on a scale of 0-100, with 0 indicating low satisfaction and 100 indicating high satisfaction; combined total of all 10 questions was taken for final mean score of 0-100 (higher score indicating higher satisfaction).
Time Frame
1 Month Follow-Up, and 6 Month Follow-Up
Title
Changes in Patient Treatment Status (Medical Record Review (Patients Only)
Description
Medical record review (patients only): Treatment received by 6 months, below numbers reported as number of participants who received an LVAD.
Time Frame
6 Month Follow-Up

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Adult patients who have advanced heart failure and are being evaluated for DT LVAD Caregivers of patients who are being evaluated for DT LVAD Exclusion Criteria: Under 18 years of age Non-English Speaking Unable to consent Prisoner Already implanted with DT LVAD
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Larry Allen, MD, MHS
Organizational Affiliation
University of Colorado School of Medicine
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
University of Colorado School of Medicine
City
Aurora
State/Province
Colorado
ZIP/Postal Code
80045
Country
United States
Facility Name
St. Vincent Indianapolis Hospital
City
Indianapolis
State/Province
Indiana
ZIP/Postal Code
46260
Country
United States
Facility Name
Brigham and Women's Hospital
City
Boston
State/Province
Massachusetts
ZIP/Postal Code
02115
Country
United States
Facility Name
Mayo Clinic
City
Rochester
State/Province
Minnesota
ZIP/Postal Code
55905
Country
United States
Facility Name
Washington University School of Medicine in St.Louis
City
Saint Louis
State/Province
Missouri
ZIP/Postal Code
63110
Country
United States
Facility Name
Duke University Medicine
City
Durham
State/Province
North Carolina
ZIP/Postal Code
27710
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
No
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
24352519
Citation
Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Blaha MJ, Dai S, Ford ES, Fox CS, Franco S, Fullerton HJ, Gillespie C, Hailpern SM, Heit JA, Howard VJ, Huffman MD, Judd SE, Kissela BM, Kittner SJ, Lackland DT, Lichtman JH, Lisabeth LD, Mackey RH, Magid DJ, Marcus GM, Marelli A, Matchar DB, McGuire DK, Mohler ER 3rd, Moy CS, Mussolino ME, Neumar RW, Nichol G, Pandey DK, Paynter NP, Reeves MJ, Sorlie PD, Stein J, Towfighi A, Turan TN, Virani SS, Wong ND, Woo D, Turner MB; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014 Jan 21;129(3):e28-e292. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000441139.02102.80. Epub 2013 Dec 18. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23616602
Citation
Heidenreich PA, Albert NM, Allen LA, Bluemke DA, Butler J, Fonarow GC, Ikonomidis JS, Khavjou O, Konstam MA, Maddox TM, Nichol G, Pham M, Pina IL, Trogdon JG; American Heart Association Advocacy Coordinating Committee; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; Stroke Council. Forecasting the impact of heart failure in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circ Heart Fail. 2013 May;6(3):606-19. doi: 10.1161/HHF.0b013e318291329a. Epub 2013 Apr 24.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23290542
Citation
Miller LW, Guglin M. Patient selection for ventricular assist devices: a moving target. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Mar 26;61(12):1209-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.08.1029. Epub 2013 Jan 2.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
12815567
Citation
Hershberger RE, Nauman D, Walker TL, Dutton D, Burgess D. Care processes and clinical outcomes of continuous outpatient support with inotropes (COSI) in patients with refractory endstage heart failure. J Card Fail. 2003 Jun;9(3):180-7. doi: 10.1054/jcaf.2003.24.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
11794191
Citation
Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, Heitjan DF, Stevenson LW, Dembitsky W, Long JW, Ascheim DD, Tierney AR, Levitan RG, Watson JT, Meier P, Ronan NS, Shapiro PA, Lazar RM, Miller LW, Gupta L, Frazier OH, Desvigne-Nickens P, Oz MC, Poirier VL; Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure (REMATCH) Study Group. Long-term use of a left ventricular assist device for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 15;345(20):1435-43. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012175.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17707178
Citation
Rogers JG, Butler J, Lansman SL, Gass A, Portner PM, Pasque MK, Pierson RN 3rd; INTrEPID Investigators. Chronic mechanical circulatory support for inotrope-dependent heart failure patients who are not transplant candidates: results of the INTrEPID Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Aug 21;50(8):741-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.03.063. Epub 2007 Aug 6.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
19920051
Citation
Slaughter MS, Rogers JG, Milano CA, Russell SD, Conte JV, Feldman D, Sun B, Tatooles AJ, Delgado RM 3rd, Long JW, Wozniak TC, Ghumman W, Farrar DJ, Frazier OH; HeartMate II Investigators. Advanced heart failure treated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. N Engl J Med. 2009 Dec 3;361(23):2241-51. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0909938. Epub 2009 Nov 17. Erratum In: N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 16;379(7):697.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15063260
Citation
Grady KL, Meyer PM, Dressler D, Mattea A, Chillcott S, Loo A, White-Williams C, Todd B, Ormaza S, Kaan A, Costanzo MR, Piccione W. Longitudinal change in quality of life and impact on survival after left ventricular assist device implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004 Apr;77(4):1321-7. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2003.09.089.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
25294625
Citation
McIlvennan CK, Magid KH, Ambardekar AV, Thompson JS, Matlock DD, Allen LA. Clinical outcomes after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: a systematic review. Circ Heart Fail. 2014 Nov;7(6):1003-13. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.114.001391. Epub 2014 Oct 7.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23352390
Citation
Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Kormos RL, Stevenson LW, Pagani FD, Miller MA, Baldwin JT, Young JB. Fifth INTERMACS annual report: risk factor analysis from more than 6,000 mechanical circulatory support patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013 Feb;32(2):141-56. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2012.12.004. Erratum In: J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015 Oct;34(10):1356. Timothy Baldwin, J [corrected to Baldwin, J T].
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22438521
Citation
Flint KM, Matlock DD, Lindenfeld J, Allen LA. Frailty and the selection of patients for destination therapy left ventricular assist device. Circ Heart Fail. 2012 Mar 1;5(2):286-93. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.111.963215. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22392529
Citation
Allen LA, Stevenson LW, Grady KL, Goldstein NE, Matlock DD, Arnold RM, Cook NR, Felker GM, Francis GS, Hauptman PJ, Havranek EP, Krumholz HM, Mancini D, Riegel B, Spertus JA; American Heart Association; Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia. Decision making in advanced heart failure: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012 Apr 17;125(15):1928-52. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31824f2173. Epub 2012 Mar 5. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24425698
Citation
McIlvennan CK, Allen LA. To DT or not to DT, that is the question: working toward a comprehensive, patient-centered perspective on left ventricular assist device for destination therapy. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Jan;7(1):13-4. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000762. Epub 2014 Jan 14. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
20457339
Citation
Baker K, Flattery M, Salyer J, Haugh KH, Maltby M. Caregiving for patients requiring left ventricular assistance device support. Heart Lung. 2010 May-Jun;39(3):196-200. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2009.07.007. Epub 2009 Oct 1.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21471491
Citation
Fowler FJ Jr, Levin CA, Sepucha KR. Informing and involving patients to improve the quality of medical decisions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Apr;30(4):699-706. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0003.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24823949
Citation
McIlvennan CK, Allen LA, Nowels C, Brieke A, Cleveland JC, Matlock DD. Decision making for destination therapy left ventricular assist devices: "there was no choice" versus "I thought about it an awful lot". Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 May;7(3):374-80. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000729. Epub 2014 May 13.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17485749
Citation
O'Connor AM, Wennberg JE, Legare F, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Moulton BW, Sepucha KR, Sodano AG, King JS. Toward the 'tipping point': decision aids and informed patient choice. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 May-Jun;26(3):716-25. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.716.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24470076
Citation
Stacey D, Legare F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L, Wu JH. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 28;(1):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
25316772
Citation
Iacovetto MC, Matlock DD, McIlvennan CK, Thompson JS, Bradley W, LaRue SJ, Allen LA. Educational resources for patients considering a left ventricular assist device: a cross-sectional review of internet, print, and multimedia materials. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Nov;7(6):905-11. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.000892. Epub 2014 Oct 14.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24625093
Citation
Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen PD, Ng CJ, van der Weijden T. A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S2. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2. Epub 2013 Nov 29.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16908462
Citation
Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, Thomson R, Barratt A, Barry M, Bernstein S, Butow P, Clarke A, Entwistle V, Feldman-Stewart D, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Moumjid N, Mulley A, Ruland C, Sepucha K, Sykes A, Whelan T; International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE. Epub 2006 Aug 14.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24714602
Citation
Matlock DD, Spatz ES. Design and testing of tools for shared decision making. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 May;7(3):487-92. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000289. Epub 2014 Apr 8. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
18588401
Citation
Volandes AE, Ariza M, Abbo ED, Paasche-Orlow M. Overcoming educational barriers for advance care planning in Latinos with video images. J Palliat Med. 2008 Jun;11(5):700-6. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2007.0172.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21411284
Citation
Mdege ND, Man MS, Taylor Nee Brown CA, Torgerson DJ. Systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials shows that design is particularly used to evaluate interventions during routine implementation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Sep;64(9):936-48. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.003. Epub 2011 Mar 16.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16945984
Citation
Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Estabrooks PA, Vogt TM. Evaluating the impact of health promotion programs: using the RE-AIM framework to form summary measures for decision making involving complex issues. Health Educ Res. 2006 Oct;21(5):688-94. doi: 10.1093/her/cyl081. Epub 2006 Aug 31.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
18718734
Citation
Sepucha KR, Levin CA, Uzogara EE, Barry MJ, O'Connor AM, Mulley AG. Developing instruments to measure the quality of decisions: early results for a set of symptom-driven decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):504-10. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.009. Epub 2008 Aug 20.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
19594942
Citation
Helfrich CD, Li YF, Sharp ND, Sales AE. Organizational readiness to change assessment (ORCA): development of an instrument based on the Promoting Action on Research in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. Implement Sci. 2009 Jul 14;4:38. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-38.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
7898294
Citation
O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995 Jan-Mar;15(1):25-30. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500105.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
12926578
Citation
Brehaut JC, O'Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, Feldman-Stewart D. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003 Jul-Aug;23(4):281-92. doi: 10.1177/0272989X03256005.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
6668417
Citation
Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983 Dec;24(4):385-96. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
6880820
Citation
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
10109801
Citation
EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
20605850
Citation
Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Rocker GM, Dodek PM, Kutsogiannis DJ, Skrobik Y, Jiang X, Day AG, Cohen SR; Canadian Researchers at the End of Life Network. The development and validation of a novel questionnaire to measure patient and family satisfaction with end-of-life care: the Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project (CANHELP) Questionnaire. Palliat Med. 2010 Oct;24(7):682-95. doi: 10.1177/0269216310373168. Epub 2010 Jul 6.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
35569806
Citation
Raymer DS, Allen LA, Chaussee EL, McIlvennan CK, Thompson JS, Fairclough DL, Dunlay SM, Matlock DD, Larue SJ. Health Literacy in Patients Considering a Left Ventricular Assist Device: Findings From the DECIDE-LVAD Trial. J Card Fail. 2022 Aug;28(8):1318-1325. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2022.04.009. Epub 2022 May 13.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
34465131
Citation
McIlvennan CK, Jones J, Makic M, Meek PM, Chaussee E, Thompson JS, Matlock DD, Allen LA. Stress and Coping Among Family Caregivers of Patients With a Destination Therapy Left Ventricular Assist Device: A Multicenter Mixed Methods Study. Circ Heart Fail. 2021 Oct;14(10):e008243. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.120.008243. Epub 2021 Sep 1.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
34296623
Citation
Knoepke CE, Chaussee EL, Matlock DD, Thompson JS, McIlvennan CK, Ambardekar AV, Schaffer EM, Khazanie P, Scherer L, Arnold RM, Allen LA. Changes over Time in Patient Stated Values and Treatment Preferences Regarding Aggressive Therapies: Insights from the DECIDE-LVAD Trial. Med Decis Making. 2022 Apr;42(3):404-414. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211028234. Epub 2021 Jul 23.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
32428430
Citation
Matlock DD, McIlvennan CK, Thompson JS, Morris MA, Venechuk G, Dunlay SM, LaRue SJ, Lewis EF, Patel CB, Blue L, Chaussee EL, Glasgow RE, Walsh MN, Allen LA. Decision Aid Implementation among Left Ventricular Assist Device Programs Participating in the DECIDE-LVAD Stepped-Wedge Trial. Med Decis Making. 2020 Apr;40(3):289-301. doi: 10.1177/0272989X20915227.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
32148099
Citation
McIlvennan CK, Matlock DD, Allen LA, Thompson JS, Ranby KW, Sannes TS. Perceived Stress and Depressive Symptoms as Predictors of Decisional Conflict in Dyads Considering a Left Ventricular Assist Device. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Mar;13(3):e006155. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006155. Epub 2020 Mar 9.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
31129442
Citation
Warraich HJ, Allen LA, Blue LJ, Chaussee EL, Thompson JS, McIlvennan CK, Flint KM, Matlock DD, Patel CB. Comorbidities and the decision to undergo or forego destination therapy left ventricular assist device implantation: An analysis from the Trial of a Shared Decision Support Intervention for Patients and their Caregivers Offered Destination Therapy for End-Stage Heart Failure (DECIDE-LVAD) study. Am Heart J. 2019 Jul;213:91-96. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2019.04.008. Epub 2019 Apr 25.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
30316931
Citation
McIlvennan CK, Matlock DD, Thompson JS, Dunlay SM, Blue L, LaRue SJ, Lewis EF, Patel CB, Fairclough DL, Leister EC, Swetz KM, Baldridge V, Walsh MN, Allen LA. Caregivers of Patients Considering a Destination Therapy Left Ventricular Assist Device and a Shared Decision-Making Intervention: The DECIDE-LVAD Trial. JACC Heart Fail. 2018 Nov;6(11):904-913. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2018.06.019. Epub 2018 Oct 10.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
29482225
Citation
Allen LA, McIlvennan CK, Thompson JS, Dunlay SM, LaRue SJ, Lewis EF, Patel CB, Blue L, Fairclough DL, Leister EC, Glasgow RE, Cleveland JC Jr, Phillips C, Baldridge V, Walsh MN, Matlock DD. Effectiveness of an Intervention Supporting Shared Decision Making for Destination Therapy Left Ventricular Assist Device: The DECIDE-LVAD Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Apr 1;178(4):520-529. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8713.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
27203272
Citation
McIlvennan CK, Thompson JS, Matlock DD, Cleveland JC Jr, Dunlay SM, LaRue SJ, Lewis EF, Patel CB, Walsh MN, Allen LA. A Multicenter Trial of a Shared Decision Support Intervention for Patients and Their Caregivers Offered Destination Therapy for Advanced Heart Failure: DECIDE-LVAD: Rationale, Design, and Pilot Data. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2016 Nov/Dec;31(6):E8-E20. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000343.
Results Reference
derived
Links:
URL
http://patientdecisionaid.org
Description
Decision Aids for Patients Considering Destination Therapy Left Ventricular Assist Device

Learn more about this trial

PCORI-1310-06998 Trial of a Decision Support Intervention for Patients and Caregivers Offered Destination Therapy Heart Assist Device

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs