Shared Decision Making for an Implantable Pulmonary Artery Monitoring Device in Heart Failure: A Pilot Study

Abstract

Pulmonary artery (PA) pressure can be monitored remotely by a microelectromechanical sensor (MEMS) permanently implanted in the pulmonary artery. This device allows early management of fluid overload in heart failure so that diuresis can be initiated promptly, and hospitalization and other adverse events can be prevented. To test the methods and measures proposed to explore patient and provider perceptions of Shared Decision Making for the CardioMEMS pulmonary artery pressure monitoring device. A convenience sample of eight patient-provider dyads was enrolled at an ambulatory academic cardiology clinic and completed the shared decision making questionnaire in the clinic prior to the procedure. The majority of providers reported complete agreement that shared decision making occurred. Patients’ survey responses varied but remained positive. The survey used was feasible and effective. Dyad perceptions were positive and concordant in this small convenience sample. Future studies with larger samples are needed to develop interventions to promote behaviors necessary for shared decision making.

Keywords

CardioMEMS / Pulmonary artery pressure monitoring / Surgically implanted sensor / Heart failure / Shared decision making / Volume overload

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.Y. and K.A.B.; Methodology, K.A.B.; Software, S.Y., K.A.B. ; Validation, K.A.B.; Formal Analysis, S.Y., K.A.B.; Investigation, S.Y.; Resources, S.Y.; Data Curation, K.A.B.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, S.Y.; Writing—Review & Editing, K.A.B., S.Y.; Supervision, K.A.B.; Project Administration, K.A.B.; Funding Acquisition (NA).

Ethics Statement

This project was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Kansas Medical Center and was determined to not require approval, as this was a quality improvement project and not intended to be widely generalizable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data is accessible to researchers. A request stating the reason(s) for obtaining and use of the data can be directed to the primary author.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] Bozkurt B, Ahmad T, Alexander K, Baker WL, Bosak K, Breathett K, et al. Heart Failure Epidemiology and Outcomes Statistics: A Report of the Heart Failure Society of America. J. Card. Fail. 2023, 29, 1412-1451.

[2] Ollendorf DA, Sandhu AT, Pearson SD. CardioMEMS HF for the Management of Heart Failure-Effectiveness and Value. JAMA Intern. Med. 2016, 176, 1551-1552.

[3] Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2022, 145, e895-e1032.

[4] Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2012, 27, 1361-1367.

[5] Schmier JK, Ong KL, Fonarow GC. Cost-Effectiveness of Remote Cardiac Monitoring with the CardioMEMS Heart Failure System. Clin. Cardiol. 2017, 40, 430-436.

[6] Singh R, Varjabedian L, Kaspar G, Zughaib M. CardioMEMS in a Busy Cardiology Practice: Less than Optimal Implementation of a Valuable Tool to Reduce Heart Failure Readmissions. Cardiol. Res. Pract. 2018, 2018, 4918757.

[7] Desai AS, Bhimaraj A, Bharmi R, Jermyn R, Bhatt K, Shavelle D, et al. Ambulatory Hemodynamic Monitoring Reduces Heart Failure Hospitalizations in “Real-World” Clinical Practice. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 69, 2357-2365.

[8] Dickinson MG, Allen LA, Albert NA, DiSalvo T, Ewald GA, Vest AR, et al. Remote Monitoring of Patients With Heart Failure: A White Paper From the Heart Failure Society of America Scientific Statements Committee. J. Card. Fail. 2018, 24, 682-694.

[9] Adamson PB, Abraham WT, Aaron M, Aranda JM, Jr., Bourge RC, Smith A, et al. CHAMPION trial rationale and design: The long-term safety and clinical efficacy of a wireless pulmonary artery pressure monitoring system. J. Card. Fail. 2011, 17, 3-10.

[10] Leung CC. Current Role of the CardioMEMS Device for Management of Patients with Heart Failure. Curr. Cardiol. Rep. 2019, 21, 98.

[11] Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Bourge RC, Aaron MF, Costanzo MR, Stevenson LW, et al. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011, 377, 658-666.

[12] Austin CA, Mohottige D, Sudore RL, Smith AK, Hanson LC. Tools to Promote Shared Decision Making in Serious Illness: A Systematic Review. JAMA Intern. Med. 2015, 175, 1213-1221.

[13] Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med. Decis. Mak. 2015, 35, 114-131.

[14] Elwyn G, Lloyd A, May C, van der Weijden T, Stiggelbout A, Edwards A, et al. Collaborative deliberation: A model for patient care. Patient Educ. Couns. 2014, 97, 158-164.

[15] Elwyn G, Fisher E. Higher integrity health care: evidence-based shared decision making. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 2014, 7, 975-980.

[16] Elwyn G, Frosch DL, Kobrin S. Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences. Implement Sci. 2016, 11, 114.

[17] Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Härter M. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ. Couns. 2010, 80, 94-99.

[18] Doherr H, Christalle E, Kriston L, Härter M, Scholl I. Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies-A systematic review. PloS ONE 2017, 12, e0173904.

[19] Calderon C, Jiménez-Fonseca P, Ferrando PJ, Jara C, Lorenzo-Seva U, Beato C, et al. Psychometric properties of the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in oncology practice. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2018, 18, 143-151.

[20] de Filippis R, Aloi M, Pilieci AM, Boniello F, Quirino D, Steardo L, Jr., et al. Psychometric Properties of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9): Validation of the Italian Version in a Large Psychiatric Clinical Sample. Clin. Neuropsychiatry 2022, 19, 264-271.

[21] Alvarado-Villa GE, Moncayo-Rizzo JD, Gallardo-Rumbea JA. Spanish validation endorsement of SDM-Q-9, a new approach. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 106.

[22] Dennison Himmelfarb CR, Beckie TM, Allen LA, Commodore-Mensah Y, Davidson PM, Lin G, et al. Shared Decision-Making and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2023, 148, 912-931.

[23] Oprea N, Ardito V, Ciani O. Implementing shared decision-making interventions in breast cancer clinical practice: a scoping review. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2023, 23, 164.

[24] Elwyn G, Brunelli A. Shared decision making and its relevance to thoracic surgery. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2023, 165, 1967-1970.

[25] Creutzfeldt CJ. Palliative Care and Shared Decision Making in the Neurocritical Care Unit. Continuum 2021, 27, 1430-1443.

[26] Schoon Y. Shared decision-making is not common in clinical practice. Heart 2022, 108, 498-499.

[27] Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Buchholz A, Härter M. Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire--physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ. Couns. 2012, 88, 284-290.