Radial Artery Versus Femoral Artery Access Options in Coronary Angiogram Procedures: Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient-Decision Aid

Background— Vascular access options in coronary angiography can be considered a preference-sensitive decision, where the benefits/risks have different levels of significance, depending on the individual patient. For preference-sensitive healthcare options, patient decision aids (PtDA) significantly improve the process of decision-making. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of an evidence-based PtDA compared with usual care in patients eligible for radial and femoral artery access. Methods and Results— We conducted a single-center, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial with patients eligible for both femoral and radial access as per their treating physician. The PtDA was designed to guide patients to make an informed choice, consistent with their preferences and values. The primary outcome, decisional conflict, was assessed using the validated decisional conflict scale. One hundred fifty patients were randomized (vascular access PtDA=76 versus usual care=74). The intervention group had a significantly reduced decisional conflict scale compared with control (unadjusted 14.8 versus 19.5, P=0.04) and were significantly more knowledgeable regarding risks/benefits associated with each vascular access (mean knowledge score 3/5 (95% confidence interval, 2.6 to 3.3) versus 2/5 (95% confidence interval, 1.7 to 2.3, P<0.01). PtDA patients had better informed value congruence with their vascular access received (47.3% versus 25.7%, P<0.01). There were no significant differences in procedural success or safety between the 2 groups. Conclusions— A vascular access PtDA for eligible patients undergoing coronary angiogram procedures reduces decisional conflict and improves value congruence and the patients' knowledge of their healthcare options; however, a multicenter study, powered to confirm these benefits and evaluate differences in procedural success or complications, is required. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01032551.

[1]  Shoshannah A. Pearlman.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , 2013, Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association.

[2]  S. Yusuf,et al.  Impact of transradial and transfemoral coronary interventions on bleeding and net adverse clinical events in acute coronary syndromes. , 2011, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[3]  Sunil V. Rao,et al.  Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial , 2011, The Lancet.

[4]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  Using decision aids may improve informed consent for research. , 2010, Contemporary clinical trials.

[5]  D. Blumenthal,et al.  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , 2010 .

[6]  M. Kern.  Cardiac catheterization on the road less traveled: navigating the radial versus femoral debate. , 2009, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[7]  Salim Yusuf,et al.  Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. , 2009, American heart journal.

[8]  H. Krumholz.  Circulation: cardiovascular quality and outcomes: scholarship to improve health and health care for patients and populations. , 2008, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[9]  I. Nault,et al.  One-year clinical outcome after abciximab bolus-only compared with abciximab bolus and 12-hour infusion in the Randomized EArly Discharge after Transradial Stenting of CoronarY Arteries (EASY) Study. , 2008, American heart journal.

[10]  Vikki Entwistle,et al.  Do Patient Decision Aids Meet Effectiveness Criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[11]  Aileen Clarke,et al.  Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  J. Ward,et al.  Will men attribute fault to their GP for adverse effects arising from controversial screening tests? An Australian study using scenarios about PSA screening , 2004, Journal of medical screening.

[13]  A. Ziakas,et al.  Same-day discharge is preferred by the majority of the patients undergoing radial PCI. , 2004, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[14]  G. Biondi-Zoccai,et al.  Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures; Systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  R. Thomson,et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[16]  J. Wennberg,et al.  Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  Peter Tugwell,et al.  Randomized Trial of a Portable, Self-administered Decision Aid for Postmenopausal Women Considering Long-term Preventive Hormone Therapy , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[18]  P Tugwell,et al.  A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: decision support framework and evaluation. , 1998, Patient education and counseling.

[19]  C. Charles,et al.  Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). , 1997, Social science & medicine.

[20]  A. O'Connor.  Validation of a Decisional Conflict Scale , 1995, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.