• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

首次择期经皮冠状动脉血运重建患者对获益与风险的认知

Perceptions of benefit and risk of patients undergoing first-time elective percutaneous coronary revascularization.

作者信息

Holmboe E S, Fiellin D A, Cusanelli E, Remetz M, Krumholz H M

机构信息

Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD 20889, USA.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2000 Sep;15(9):632-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.90823.x.

DOI:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.90823.x
PMID:11029677
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1495592/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess reasons why patients undergo elective percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCR), patient expectations of the benefits of PCR, and their understanding of the risks associated with PCR. We hypothesized that patients overestimate the benefits and underestimate the risks associated with PCR.

DESIGN

A prospective, semistructured questionnaire.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing their first elective PCR.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-two consecutive patients with a mean age of 64.3 years (range 39-87) completed the interview. Although 30 (57%) patients cited relief of symptoms as at least 1 reason to have PCR, 32 (62%) patients cited either an abnormal diagnostic test result (i.e., exercise stress test or catheterization) or "pathophysiologic" problem (i.e., "I have a blockage"), with 17 patients (33%) citing these reasons alone as indications for PCR. Thirty-nine (75%) patients believed PCR would prevent a future myocardial infarction, and 37 (71%) patients felt PCR would prolong their life. Regarding the potential complications, only 24 patients (46%) could recall at least 1 possible complication. However, on a Deber questionnaire, the majority of patients (67%) stated that they should determine either mostly alone or equally with a physician how acceptable the risks of the procedure are for themselves.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients had unrealistic expectations about the long-term benefits of elective PCR and was not aware of the potential risks, even though they expressed a strong interest in participating in the decision to have PCR. More work is needed to define the optimal strategy to educate patients about the benefits and risks of elective PCR, and whether such education will affect patient decision making.

摘要

目的

评估患者接受择期经皮冠状动脉血运重建术(PCR)的原因、对PCR益处的期望以及对与PCR相关风险的理解。我们假设患者高估了PCR的益处并低估了与之相关的风险。

设计

一项前瞻性、半结构化问卷调查。

参与者

接受首次择期PCR的患者。

主要结果

52例连续患者完成了访谈,平均年龄64.3岁(范围39 - 87岁)。尽管30例(57%)患者将症状缓解列为至少一个进行PCR的原因,但32例(62%)患者提到了异常的诊断检查结果(即运动负荷试验或心导管检查)或“病理生理”问题(即“我有堵塞”),其中17例(33%)患者仅将这些原因作为进行PCR的指征。39例(75%)患者认为PCR可预防未来心肌梗死,37例(71%)患者觉得PCR可延长寿命。关于潜在并发症,只有24例(46%)患者能回忆起至少一种可能的并发症。然而,在一份德伯问卷中,大多数患者(67%)表示他们应主要独自或与医生平等地确定该手术风险对自己来说的可接受程度。

结论

大多数患者对择期PCR的长期益处抱有不切实际的期望,且未意识到潜在风险,尽管他们表示对参与是否进行PCR的决策有浓厚兴趣。需要开展更多工作来确定对患者进行择期PCR益处和风险教育的最佳策略,以及这种教育是否会影响患者的决策。

相似文献

1
Perceptions of benefit and risk of patients undergoing first-time elective percutaneous coronary revascularization.首次择期经皮冠状动脉血运重建患者对获益与风险的认知
J Gen Intern Med. 2000 Sep;15(9):632-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.90823.x.
2
Patients overestimate the potential benefits of elective percutaneous coronary intervention.患者高估了选择性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的潜在益处。
Mo Med. 2012 Jan-Feb;109(1):79-84.
3
Informed consent for cardiac procedures: deficiencies in patient comprehension with current methods.心脏手术的知情同意:现行方法下患者理解能力的不足。
Ann Thorac Surg. 2014 May;97(5):1505-11; discussion 1511-2. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.12.065. Epub 2014 Mar 12.
4
The effect of information presentation on beliefs about the benefits of elective percutaneous coronary intervention.信息呈现对选择性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗益处的信念的影响。
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct;174(10):1623-9. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3331.
5
Heart disease attributions of patients prior to elective percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.择期经皮冠状动脉腔内血管成形术之前患者的心脏病归因
J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2004 Jan-Feb;19(1):41-7. doi: 10.1097/00005082-200401000-00008.
6
Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial.高危经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中选择性主动脉内球囊反搏:一项随机对照试验。
JAMA. 2010 Aug 25;304(8):867-74. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1190.
7
Are hospitalizations for percutaneous coronary procedures missed opportunities for teaching rules of secondary prevention?经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后的住院治疗是否错失了传授二级预防规则的机会?
Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2007 Mar;68(1):31-5. doi: 10.4081/monaldi.2007.466.
8
Effect of complications within 90 days on patient-reported outcomes 3 months and 12 months following elective surgery for lumbar degenerative disease.腰椎退行性疾病择期手术后90天内并发症对患者报告的3个月和12个月结局的影响。
Neurosurg Focus. 2015 Dec;39(6):E8. doi: 10.3171/2015.8.FOCUS15302.
9
Safety of elective--including "high risk"--percutaneous coronary interventions without on-site cardiac surgery.非急诊(包括“高风险”)经皮冠状动脉介入治疗且现场无心脏外科手术支持的安全性。
Am Heart J. 2004 Oct;148(4):676-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.03.040.
10
Informed consent: do information pamphlets improve post-operative risk-recall in patients undergoing total thyroidectomy: prospective randomized control study.知情同意:信息手册能否提高甲状腺全切除术患者术后的风险认知:前瞻性随机对照研究。
J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016 Feb 13;45:14. doi: 10.1186/s40463-016-0127-5.

引用本文的文献

1
Is Better Patient Knowledge Associated with Different Treatment Preferences? A Survey of Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease.更好的患者知识与不同的治疗偏好相关吗?一项对稳定型冠状动脉疾病患者的调查。
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021 Jan 26;15:119-126. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S289398. eCollection 2021.
2
Identifying Knowledge Gaps among LVAD Candidates.识别左心室辅助装置(LVAD)候选者之间的知识差距。
J Clin Med. 2019 Apr 23;8(4):549. doi: 10.3390/jcm8040549.
3
Differences of patients' perceptions for elective diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in stable coronary artery disease between elderly and younger patients.老年与年轻稳定型冠心病患者对选择性诊断性冠状动脉造影及经皮冠状动脉介入治疗感知的差异。
Clin Interv Aging. 2018 Oct 10;13:1935-1943. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S178129. eCollection 2018.
4
Assessing the Informed Consent Skills of Emergency Medicine Resident Physicians.评估急诊医学住院医师的知情同意技能。
AEM Educ Train. 2017 May 12;1(3):221-224. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10037. eCollection 2017 Jul.
5
Does ischemia burden in stable coronary artery disease effectively identify revascularization candidates? Ischemia burden in stable coronary artery disease does not effectively identify revascularization candidates.稳定型冠状动脉疾病中的缺血负荷能否有效识别血运重建候选者?稳定型冠状动脉疾病中的缺血负荷不能有效识别血运重建候选者。
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 May;8(5):discussion p 9. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.113.000362.
6
Variation in patients' perceptions of elective percutaneous coronary intervention in stable coronary artery disease: cross sectional study.稳定型冠状动脉疾病患者对选择性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗认知的差异:横断面研究
BMJ. 2014 Sep 8;349:g5309. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5309.
7
How cardiologists present the benefits of percutaneous coronary interventions to patients with stable angina: a qualitative analysis.心脏病学家向稳定性心绞痛患者介绍经皮冠状动脉介入治疗益处的方法:定性分析。
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct;174(10):1614-21. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3328.
8
Variations in health care, patient preferences, and high-quality decision making.医疗保健、患者偏好及高质量决策的差异。
JAMA. 2013 Jul 10;310(2):151-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.7835.
9
Rating the preferences for potential harms of treatments for cardiovascular disease: a survey of community-dwelling adults.评价心血管疾病治疗潜在危害的偏好:一项社区成年居民的调查。
Med Decis Making. 2013 May;33(4):502-9. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13475717. Epub 2013 Feb 13.
10
Patients overestimate the potential benefits of elective percutaneous coronary intervention.患者高估了选择性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的潜在益处。
Mo Med. 2012 Jan-Feb;109(1):79-84.

本文引用的文献

1
Perils, pitfalls, and possibilities in talking about medical risk.
JAMA. 1999 Mar 17;281(11):1037-41. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.11.1037.
2
Regional variation in angiography, coronary artery bypass surgery, and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in Manitoba, 1987 to 1992: the funnel effect.1987年至1992年曼尼托巴省血管造影、冠状动脉搭桥手术和经皮腔内冠状动脉成形术的区域差异:漏斗效应
Med Care. 1998 Jul;36(7):1022-32. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199807000-00009.
3
Revascularization in coronary artery disease. A review of randomized trial data.冠状动脉疾病中的血运重建。随机试验数据综述。
West J Med. 1998 Apr;168(4):280-5.
4
Management of chronic stable angina: medical therapy, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Lessons from the randomized trials.慢性稳定型心绞痛的治疗:药物治疗、经皮腔内冠状动脉成形术和冠状动脉旁路移植手术。随机试验的经验教训。
Ann Intern Med. 1998 Feb 1;128(3):216-23. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-128-3-199802010-00008.
5
The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography.数字能力在理解乳腺钼靶筛查益处方面的作用。
Ann Intern Med. 1997 Dec 1;127(11):966-72. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003.
6
Coronary angioplasty versus medical therapy for angina: the second Randomised Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA-2) trial. RITA-2 trial participants.冠状动脉血管成形术与药物治疗心绞痛:第二项随机干预治疗心绞痛(RITA - 2)试验。RITA - 2试验参与者。
Lancet. 1997 Aug 16;350(9076):461-8.
7
Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical therapy for stable angina pectoris: outcomes for patients with double-vessel versus single-vessel coronary artery disease in a Veterans Affairs Cooperative randomized trial. Veterans Affairs ACME InvestigatorS.经皮腔内冠状动脉成形术与药物治疗稳定型心绞痛的比较:退伍军人事务部合作随机试验中双支血管与单支血管冠状动脉疾病患者的结局。退伍军人事务部ACME研究人员
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Jun;29(7):1505-11. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(97)00097-1.
8
Patients' preferences for risk disclosure and role in decision making for invasive medical procedures.患者对风险披露的偏好以及在侵入性医疗程序决策中的作用。
J Gen Intern Med. 1997 Feb;12(2):114-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00016.x.
9
Impact of an interactive video on decision making of patients with ischemic heart disease.交互式视频对缺血性心脏病患者决策的影响。
J Gen Intern Med. 1996 Jun;11(6):373-6. doi: 10.1007/BF02600051.
10
What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making?患者希望在治疗决策中扮演什么角色?
Arch Intern Med. 1996 Jul 8;156(13):1414-20.