Shelby D Reed, Jui-Chen Yang, Matthew J Wallace, Jessie Sutphin, F Reed Johnson, Semra Ozdemir, Stephanie M Delgado, Scott Goates, Nicole Harbert, Monica Lo, Bharath Rajagopalan, James E Ip, Sana M Al-Khatib
{"title":"Patient Preferences for Features Associated With Leadless Versus Conventional Transvenous Cardiac Pacemakers.","authors":"Shelby D Reed, Jui-Chen Yang, Matthew J Wallace, Jessie Sutphin, F Reed Johnson, Semra Ozdemir, Stephanie M Delgado, Scott Goates, Nicole Harbert, Monica Lo, Bharath Rajagopalan, James E Ip, Sana M Al-Khatib","doi":"10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.124.011168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Regulatory approval of the first dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system provides patients an alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers. The study objective was to quantify the preferences of patients for pacemaker features.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with a de novo (ie, initial) pacemaker indication were recruited from 7 US sites to complete a Web-based discrete-choice experiment survey between May 11, 2022, and May 24, 2023. Patients chose between pairs of experimentally designed, hypothetical pacemakers that varied according to type (removable leadless, nonremovable leadless, or conventional transvenous); battery life (5, 8, 12, or 15 years); time since regulatory approval (2 or 10 years); discomfort for 6 months (none or discomfort); and complication risk and infection risk (1%, 5%, or 10%/20% for each). Patients' choice data were analyzed using random-parameter logit models and latent-class analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 117 participants, the mean (SD) age was 67.3 (14.6) years, 94% were white, and 42% were female. On average, patients' survey responses revealed a preference for removable leadless pacemakers (β, 0.340; SE, 0.096) over both nonremovable leadless pacemakers (β, -0.310; SE, 0.131; <i>P</i>=0.001) and conventional transvenous pacemakers (β, -0.030; SE, 0.119; <i>P</i>=0.031). However, latent-class analysis revealed 2 distinct preference classes. One class preferred leadless pacemakers (50.5%), and the other class preferred conventional transvenous pacemakers (49.5%). The conventional pacemaker class prioritized pacemakers with 10 rather than 2 years since regulatory approval (<i>P</i><0.001), whereas the leadless pacemaker class was insensitive to years since regulatory approval (<i>P</i>=0.83). Complication risks and infection risks were found to be the most influential. All else equal, patients would accept maximum risks of complications or infections ranging about 5% to 18% to receive their preferred pacemaker type.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Latent-class analysis revealed strong patient preferences for the type of pacemaker, with a nearly equal split between recent leadless pacemaker technology and conventional transvenous pacemakers. These findings can inform shared decision-making between health care providers and patients.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05327101.</p>","PeriodicalId":49221,"journal":{"name":"Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","volume":" ","pages":"e011168"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.124.011168","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Regulatory approval of the first dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system provides patients an alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers. The study objective was to quantify the preferences of patients for pacemaker features.
Methods: Patients with a de novo (ie, initial) pacemaker indication were recruited from 7 US sites to complete a Web-based discrete-choice experiment survey between May 11, 2022, and May 24, 2023. Patients chose between pairs of experimentally designed, hypothetical pacemakers that varied according to type (removable leadless, nonremovable leadless, or conventional transvenous); battery life (5, 8, 12, or 15 years); time since regulatory approval (2 or 10 years); discomfort for 6 months (none or discomfort); and complication risk and infection risk (1%, 5%, or 10%/20% for each). Patients' choice data were analyzed using random-parameter logit models and latent-class analysis.
Results: Among 117 participants, the mean (SD) age was 67.3 (14.6) years, 94% were white, and 42% were female. On average, patients' survey responses revealed a preference for removable leadless pacemakers (β, 0.340; SE, 0.096) over both nonremovable leadless pacemakers (β, -0.310; SE, 0.131; P=0.001) and conventional transvenous pacemakers (β, -0.030; SE, 0.119; P=0.031). However, latent-class analysis revealed 2 distinct preference classes. One class preferred leadless pacemakers (50.5%), and the other class preferred conventional transvenous pacemakers (49.5%). The conventional pacemaker class prioritized pacemakers with 10 rather than 2 years since regulatory approval (P<0.001), whereas the leadless pacemaker class was insensitive to years since regulatory approval (P=0.83). Complication risks and infection risks were found to be the most influential. All else equal, patients would accept maximum risks of complications or infections ranging about 5% to 18% to receive their preferred pacemaker type.
Conclusions: Latent-class analysis revealed strong patient preferences for the type of pacemaker, with a nearly equal split between recent leadless pacemaker technology and conventional transvenous pacemakers. These findings can inform shared decision-making between health care providers and patients.
期刊介绍:
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, an American Heart Association journal, publishes articles related to improving cardiovascular health and health care. Content includes original research, reviews, and case studies relevant to clinical decision-making and healthcare policy. The online-only journal is dedicated to furthering the mission of promoting safe, effective, efficient, equitable, timely, and patient-centered care. Through its articles and contributions, the journal equips you with the knowledge you need to improve clinical care and population health, and allows you to engage in scholarly activities of consequence to the health of the public. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes considers the following types of articles: Original Research Articles, Data Reports, Methods Papers, Cardiovascular Perspectives, Care Innovations, Novel Statistical Methods, Policy Briefs, Data Visualizations, and Caregiver or Patient Viewpoints.