Managing Uncertainty: Physicians' Decision Making for Stroke Prevention for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Abstract

Background Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) post-intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is an area of clinical equipoise. Little is known about the tools and processes that physicians use to make decisions regarding anticoagulation in this high-risk patient population.

Objective To explore physicians' decision-making process regarding stroke prevention in patients with AF and a recent history of ICH.

Methods Qualitative study, utilizing semistructured interviews and analyzed using Framework analysis.

Results Twenty physicians from five European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom) participated. The overarching theme “Managing uncertainty,” addressed the process of making high-risk clinical decisions in the context of little available robust clinical evidence for best practice. Three subthemes were identified under the umbrella theme: (1) “Computing the risks,” captured the challenge of balancing the risks of ischemic stroke with the risk of recurrent ICH in a complex patient population; (2) “Patient factors” highlighted the influence that physician-perceived patients' beliefs and previous experience of stroke had on physicians' decisions; and (3) “Making a decision” explored the process of reaching a final decision regarding initiation of OAC therapy or not.

Conclusion Physicians described the process of deciding on stroke prevention in patients with AF post-ICH as “challenging” due to considerable “clinical equipoise.” Key factors that affected decision making were patient comorbidities, functional status, and patient willingness to engage with OAC therapy. Shared decision making was believed to be beneficial, but physicians believed that the ultimate responsibility to decide on stroke prevention lay with the clinician.

Keywords

stroke prevention - intracerebral hemorrhage - management - atrial fibrillation

• References

• 1 Chao TF, Joung B, Takahashi Y. et al. 2021 Focused update consensus guidelines of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: executive summary. Thromb Haemost 2022; 122 (01) 20-47
• 2 Eikelboom J, Merli G. Bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants vs warfarin: clinical experience. Am J Med 2016; 129 (11S): S33-S40
• 3 Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E. et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2014; 383 (9921): 955-962
• 4 Hart RG, Boop BS, Anderson DC. Oral anticoagulants and intracranial hemorrhage. Facts and hypotheses. Stroke 1995; 26 (08) 1471-1477
• 5 Delcourt C, Zheng D, Chen X. et al; INTERACT Investigators. Associations with health-related quality of life after intracerebral haemorrhage: pooled analysis of INTERACT studies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2017; 88 (01) 70-75
• 6 Poon MTC, Fonville AF, Al-Shahi Salman R. Long-term prognosis after intracerebral haemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2014; 85 (06) 660-667
• 7 Borg Xuereb C, Shaw RL, Lane DA. Patients' and health professionals' views and experiences of atrial fibrillation and oral-anticoagulant therapy: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 88 (02) 330-337
• 8 Pritchett RV, Clarke JL, Jolly K. et al. Clinicians' views and experiences of prescribing oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a qualitative meta-synthesis. PLoS One 2020; 15 (05) e0232484
• 9 Klijn CJM, Paciaroni M, Berge E. et al. Antithrombotic treatment for secondary prevention of stroke and other thromboembolic events in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack and non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a European Stroke Organisation guideline. Eur Stroke J 2019; 4 (03) 198-223
• 10 NICE. Atrial fibrillation: diagnosis and management. 2021. NICE; London: . Accessed March 22, 2022 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng196
• 11 ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT03996772. PREvention of STroke in Intracerebral haemorrhaGE Survivors With Atrial Fibrillation (PRESTIGE-AF). 2019 . Accessed July 13, 2021 at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03996772
• 12 Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. 3rd ed.. 2013. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE;
• 13 Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess B. eds. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge; 1994: 173-194
• 14 Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000; 320 (7227): 114-116
• 15 Barber JP, Walzcak KK. Conscience and critic: peer debriefing strategies in grounded theory research. In: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA: 2009
• 16 Fox RC. Experiment Perilous: Physicians and Patients Facing the Unknown. 1st ed.. New Brunswick, NJ: Taylor and Francis; 1997
• 17 Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N. et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 2021; 42 (05) 373-498
• 18 Kleindorfer DO, Towfighi A, Chaturvedi S. et al. 2021 Guideline for the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2021; 52 (07) e364-e467
• 19 Ivany E, Lane DA, Dan GA. et al. Antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation who survive an intracerebral haemorrhage: results of an EHRA survey. Europace 2021; 23 (05) 806-814
• 20 Helou MA, DiazGranados D, Ryan MS, Cyrus JW. Uncertainty in decision making in medicine: a scoping review and thematic analysis of conceptual models. Acad Med 2020; 95 (01) 157-165
• 21 El Zein M, Bahrami B, Hertwig R. Shared responsibility in collective decisions. Nat Hum Behav 2019; 3 (06) 554-559
• 22 Entwistle V, Prior M, Skea ZC, Francis JJ. Involvement in treatment decision-making: its meaning to people with diabetes and implications for conceptualisation. Soc Sci Med 2008; 66 (02) 362-375
• 23 Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 86 (01) 9-18
• 24 E Lindsay S, Alokozai A, Eppler SL. et al; VOICES Health Policy Research Investigators. Patient preferences for shared decision making: not all decisions should be shared. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2020; 28 (10) 419-426
• 25 Lane DA, Meyerhoff J, Rohner U, Lip GYH. Patients' perceptions of atrial fibrillation, stroke risk, and oral anticoagulation treatment: an international survey. TH Open 2018; 2 (03) e233-e241
• 26 NICE. Shared decision making. 2021. London: NICE; . Accessed March 22, 2022 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng197
• 27 Loh A, Leonhart R, Wills CE, Simon D, Härter M. The impact of patient participation on adherence and clinical outcome in primary care of depression. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 65 (01) 69-78
• 28 Wilke T, Bauer S, Mueller S, Kohlmann T, Bauersachs R. Patient preferences for oral anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation: a systematic literature review. Patient 2017; 10 (01) 17-37
• 29 Portnoy DB, Han PK, Ferrer RA, Klein WM, Clauser SB. Physicians' attitudes about communicating and managing scientific uncertainty differ by perceived ambiguity aversion of their patients. Health Expect 2013; 16 (04) 362-372
• 30 Politi MC, Clark MA, Ombao H, Dizon D, Elwyn G. Communicating uncertainty can lead to less decision satisfaction: a necessary cost of involving patients in shared decision making?. Health Expect 2011; 14 (01) 84-91
• 31 Han PKJ, Klein WM, Lehman T, Killam B, Massett H, Freedman AN. Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors. Med Decis Making 2011; 31 (02) 354-366
• 32 GMC. Guidance on Professional Standards and Ethics for Doctors. Decision Making and Consent. Manchester, England: General Medical Council; 2020
• 33 Politi MC, Han PKJ, Col NF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making 2007; 27 (05) 681-695
• 34 Braddock III CH. Supporting shared decision making when clinical evidence is low. Med Care Res Rev 2013; 70 (Suppl. 1): 129S-140S
• 35 Than MP, Flaws DF. Communicating diagnostic uncertainties to patients: the problems of explaining unclear diagnosis and risk. Evid Based Med 2009; 14 (03) 66-67
• 36 Simpkin AL, Armstrong KA. Communicating uncertainty: a narrative review and framework for future research. J Gen Intern Med 2019; 34 (11) 2586-2591