Patients’ preferences for coronary revascularization: a systematic review

Aims Current recommendations regarding the best treatment option for coronary revascularization are usually based on composite outcomes that were not selected or weighed with patients thence they may fail in representing patients’ preferences adequately. This systematic review aimed to appraise existing literature surrounding stated preference (SP) regarding coronary revascularization. Methods and results Studies related to SP regarding coronary revascularization were searched on Medline, Embase and Lilacs databases. Two reviewers screened all titles independently, and consensus resolved any disagreements. Of 735 total citations, six studies were included and qualitatively synthesized. Notably, the attributes most often cited in these studies coincided with those already used in clinical trials (death, myocardial infarction, stroke and redo revascularization). Half of the studies analyzed the use of composite endpoints and showed the necessity to review this practice since the attributes are weighed differently, and there is a disagreement between patients and physicians. Also, a large variety of methods were used to elicitate and value the attributes such as rating, ranking, standard gamble, willingness to pay, and discrete choice experiments. Conclusion Despite a large number of studies comparing revascularization treatment efficacy, there are just a few focusing on patients’ preferences. The selection of outcomes to be considered in the trade-off between treatment options and how to weigh them properly, taking into consideration patients’ preferences, need to be explored in future trials.

• Publication year

  2018

• Venue

  Patient Preference and Adherence

• Publication date

  2018-12-01

• Fields of study

  Medicine

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.2147/PPA.S188268PMID 30636868PMCID 6309018
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Patient and physician preferences for attributes of coronary revascularization

  2018cited by this paper
• Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future

  2018cited by this paper
• A new method of applying randomised control study data to the individual patient: A novel quantitative patient-centred approach to interpreting composite end points.

  2015influential reference
• Patient and physician perspectives on outcomes weighting in revascularization. The POWR study.

  2014cited by this paper
• Patients’ preferences for selection of endpoints in cardiovascular clinical trials

  2014cited by this paper
• Patient Preferences for Noninsulin Diabetes Medications: A Systematic Review

  2014cited by this paper
• Patient preferences for coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease

  2013cited by this paper
• Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease.

  2009cited by this paper
• The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

  2009cited by this paper
• What do patients really want? Patients’ preferences for treatment for angina

  2008cited by this paper
• Patient Preference Methods - A Patient Centered Evaluation Paradigm

  2007cited by this paper
• Patient preferences in coronary revascularization.

  1999influential reference
• Expected Utility Theory and Risky Choices with Health Outcomes

  1989cited by this paper

• Assessment of Revascularization Preferences with Best-Worst Scaling Among Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease.

  2024cites this paper
• Immediate Destiny of Bifurcation Lesions Treated with Biomatrix Alpha Stents.

  2024cites this paper
• Merging machine learning and patient preference: a novel tool for risk prediction of percutaneous coronary interventions.

  2024cites this paper
• Do the Few Dictate Care for the Many? Revascularization Considerations that Go Beyond the Guidelines.

  2024cites this paper
• Nurse-led intervention in the management of patients with cardiovascular diseases: a brief literature review

  2024cites this paper
• 2022 Joint ESC/EACTS review of the 2018 guideline recommendations on the revascularization of left main coronary artery disease in patients at low surgical risk and anatomy suitable for PCI or CABG.

  2023cites this paper
• 2022 Joint ESC/EACTS review of the 2018 guideline recommendations on the revascularization of left main coronary artery disease in patients at low surgical risk and anatomy suitable for PCI or CABG.

  2023cites this paper
• Assessment of physical, psychological and social needs for patients after coronary angioplasty

  2022cites this paper
• Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review

  2022cites this paper
• Preferências dos Pacientes após Estreitamento Coronário Recorrente: Experimentos de Escolha Discreta

  2020cites this paper
• Direct kidney injury or lower extremity ischemia induced indirect kidney injury: Which one is more harmful for kidneys?

  2020cites this paper
• Trends in Guideline-Driven Revascularization in Diabetic Patients with Multivessel Coronary Heart Disease

  2019cites this paper