Search

BACKGROUND: Women who suffer a witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) less often than men. To understand this phenomenon, we queried whether there are differences in deterrents to providing CPR based on the rescuer's gender. METHODS: Participants were surveyed using a national crowdsourcing platform. Participants ranked the following 5 previously identified themes as reasons: rescuers are afraid to injure or hurt women; rescuers might have a misconception that women do not suffer cardiac arrest; rescuers are afraid to be accused of sexual assault or sexual harassment; rescuers have a fear of touching women or that their touch might be inappropriate; and rescuers think that women are faking it or being overdramatic. Participants were adult US residents able to correctly define CPR. Participants ranked the themes if the rescuer was gender unidentified, a man, and a woman, in variable order. RESULTS: In November 2018, 520 surveys were completed. The respondents identified as 42.3% women, 74.2% White, 10.4% Black, and 6.7% Hispanic. Approximately half (48.1%) of the cohort knew how to perform CPR, but only 7.9% had ever performed CPR. When the rescuer was identified as a man, survey participants ranked fear of sexual assault or sexual harassment and fear of touching women or that the touch might be inappropriate as the top reasons (36.2% and 34.0% of responses, respectively). Conversely, when the rescuer was identified as a woman, survey respondents reported fear of hurting or injuring as the top reason (41.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Public perceptions as to why women receive less bystander CPR than men were different based on the gender of the rescuer. Participants reported that men rescuers would potentially be hindered by fears of accusations of sexual assault/harassment or inappropriate touch, while women rescuers would be deterred due to fears of causing physical injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is gaining importance in cardiology, including Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement policies requiring documented SDM for patients considering primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators. The DECIDE-ICD Trial (Decision Support Intervention for Patients offered implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators) assessed the implementation and effectiveness of patient decision aids (DAs) using a stepped-wedge design at 7 sites. The purpose of this subanalysis was to qualitatively describe electrophysiology clinicians' experience implementing and using the DAs.Methods: This included semi-structured individual interviews with electrophysiology clinicians at participating sites across the US, at least 6 months following conversion into the implementation phase of the trial (from June 2020 through February 2022). The interview guide was structured according to the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance [implementation evaluation model]) framework, assessing clinician experiences, which can impact implementation domains, and was qualitatively assessed using a mixed inductive/deductive method.Results: We completed 22 interviews post-implementation across all 7 sites. Participants included both physicians (n=16) and other clinicians who counsel patients regarding treatment options (n=6). While perception of SDM and the DA were positive, participants highlighted reasons for uneven delivery of DAs to appropriate patients. The CMS mandate for SDM was not universally viewed as associating with patients receiving DA's, but rather (1) logistics of DA delivery, (2) perceived effectiveness in improving patient decision-making, and (3) match of DA content to current patient populations. Remaining tensions include the specific trial data used in DAs and reconciling timing of delivery with when patients are actively making decisions.Conclusions: Clinicians charged with delivering DAs to patients considering primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators were generally supportive of the tenets of SDM, and of the DA tools themselves, but noted several opportunities to improve the reach and continued use of them in routine care.Registration: URL: https://www.Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique Identifier: NCT03374891. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) evaluation includes a psychosocial assessment, conducted by social workers (SWs) on the advanced heart failure multidisciplinary team. Postdischarge caregiving plans are central to psychosocial evaluation. Caregiving's relationship with LVAD outcomes is mixed, and testing patients' social resources may disadvantage those from historically undertreated groups. We describe variation in policies defining adequate caregiving plans post-LVAD implant and possible impacts on patients from marginalized groups. Methods: This was a 2-phase sequential mixed-methods study: (1) phase 1, survey of US-based LVAD SWs, describing assessment structure and policies guiding candidacy outcomes; and (2) phase 2, individual interviews with SWs to further describe how caregiving plan adequacy impacts LVAD candidacy. Results: Sixty-seven SWs returned surveys (rr=47%) from unique programs. Caregiving plan inadequacy (n=30) was the most common psychosocial dealbreaker. When asked what duration of caregiving is required, 23% indicated ≥3 months, 27% 4 to 12 weeks, and 30% <4 weeks. Two reported no duration requirement, 6 stated an indefinite 24/7 commitment was necessary. Across 22 interviews, SWs mirrored that caregiving plans were the most common psychosocial contraindication. How caregiving is operationalized varied. Participants voiced a tension between extended caregiving improving outcomes and the sense that some people of color, women, or low socioeconomic status patients struggle to meet stringent requirements. Conclusions: Policies regarding adequate duration of 24/7 caregiving vary, but inadequate caregiving plans are the most common psychosocial contraindication. Participants worry about patients' ability to meet restrictive requirements, particularly from historically undertreated groups. This highlights a need to operationalize quality caregiving, standardize assessment, and support medically appropriate patients with strained social resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) have the option of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Individual treatment considerations hinge on the likelihood of improvements to quality of life (QOL), especially when uncertainty is amplified by the presence of comorbidities or the necessity of non-transfemoral approaches. Methods: Using PRISMA guidelines, we conducted an ongoing multi-database search for all trials of TAVR including QOL assessment at 1 and 12 mos post-procedure. Trials were included if they were published in English since 2013 and used either the KCCQ or SF-12 as outcome measures. We performed a mixed-effects meta-regression of extant trial data to determine whether short and long-term quality of life (QOL) improvements attributable to TAVR differed according to patient surgical risk (inoperable, high, or intermediate) or access approach (transfemoral or alternate). Results: We identified 29 total trial-cohorts meeting criteria. After removing duplicate analyses, we were left with 15 cohorts including 4383 total patients who received TAVR. Due to heterogeneity of variance, random effects models were fit, illustrating a consistent positive effect on QOL across trials, both at 1mo (log relative mean difference=-0.6, 95% CI: -0.91 to -0.37), and 12mos (lrmd=-0.99, 95% CI: -1.25 to --0.73). At 1mo, QOL impact was moderated according to whether trans-femoral or alternate approaches were used (p<.02) but not by surgical risk. At 12 mos, neither factor moderated improvements to QOL. Conclusion: TAVR is consistently associated with improved QOL at 1 and 12mos post-procedure. Pooled analyses suggest that short-term QOL improvement is moderated by procedural approach, but not surgical risk, and longitudinal QOL is independent of both. These data support the adoption of TAVR among patients with varied surgical risk, even in need for alternative access approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]