Back to Journals » Patient Preference and Adherence » Volume 13

Patients’ preferences for coronary revascularization: a systematic review

Authors Magliano CAS., Monteiro AL, Rebelo ARO, Pereira CCA

Received 20 September 2018

Accepted for publication 1 December 2018

Published 24 December 2018 Volume 2019:13 Pages 29—35

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S188268

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Cristina Weinberg

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen


Carlos Alberto da Silva Magliano,1 Andrea Libório Monteiro,2 Amanda Rebeca de Oliveira Rebelo,1 Claudia Cristina de Aguiar Pereira3

1Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia, INC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 2Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Illinois, USA; 3Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, ENSP, FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Aims: Guidelines 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.

Keywords: review, systematic, preference, patient, angioplasty, transluminal, percutaneous coronary, bypass surgery, coronary revascularization

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]