George Hudson, Desmond Chan, Robert Hinchliffe, Baris Ozdemir
{"title":"Risk acceptance for deep venous interventions of the lower limb.","authors":"George Hudson, Desmond Chan, Robert Hinchliffe, Baris Ozdemir","doi":"10.1177/02683555251326711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> To discover the maximum risk acceptable to patients and clinicians for complications typical to endovascular interventions in the setting of proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS).<b>Design:</b> This was an observational study comparing patient/clinician risk acceptances in interviews using validated Standard Gamble methodology.<b>Methods:</b> 30 patients with previous DVT and 30 vascular clinicians were given a scenario describing a hypothetical case of a patient being managed with acute iliofemoral DVT and another with PTS. Subjects were asked to provide the maximum risk they would accept for individual complications to cure the condition. To interpret variability, the Venous Clinical Severity Score, SF-36 domains and VEINES-QoL for each patient were plotted against their risk acceptance for major bleeding in the DVT scenario.<b>Results:</b> For the DVT scenario, patients accepted high median risks compared to clinicians for major bleeding (40% vs 5%, <i>p</i> < .001), bleeding at other sites (50% vs 5%, <i>p</i> < .001), damage to blood vessels (60% vs 5%, <i>p</i> < .001), further procedures (80% vs 20%, <i>p</i> < .001), and treatment failure (75-80% vs 10-20%, <i>p</i> < .001). However, the gap was lower for intracranial bleeding (5% vs 1%, <i>p</i> = .004), pulmonary embolism (5 vs 5%, <i>p</i> = .39) or death (1% vs 0.75%, <i>p</i> = .77). For the PTS scenario, there were similar results again with a lower difference for pulmonary embolism (10% vs 5%, <i>p</i> = .02) and death (0.5% vs 1%, <i>p</i> = .72). Importantly, patient risk acceptance for major bleeding was negatively correlated to the emotional wellbeing (Rho = -0.43, <i>p</i> = .018) and social functioning (Rho = -0.38, <i>p</i> = .042) SF-36 domains.<b>Conclusion:</b> Overall, patients accepted a greater chance of most adverse events compared with clinicians. Patients prepared to accept greater risk were those with poorer emotional wellbeing and social functioning. It is important to take these issues into account when making shared decisions with patients about the management of their DVT/PTS.</p>","PeriodicalId":94350,"journal":{"name":"Phlebology","volume":" ","pages":"2683555251326711"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phlebology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02683555251326711","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To discover the maximum risk acceptable to patients and clinicians for complications typical to endovascular interventions in the setting of proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS).Design: This was an observational study comparing patient/clinician risk acceptances in interviews using validated Standard Gamble methodology.Methods: 30 patients with previous DVT and 30 vascular clinicians were given a scenario describing a hypothetical case of a patient being managed with acute iliofemoral DVT and another with PTS. Subjects were asked to provide the maximum risk they would accept for individual complications to cure the condition. To interpret variability, the Venous Clinical Severity Score, SF-36 domains and VEINES-QoL for each patient were plotted against their risk acceptance for major bleeding in the DVT scenario.Results: For the DVT scenario, patients accepted high median risks compared to clinicians for major bleeding (40% vs 5%, p < .001), bleeding at other sites (50% vs 5%, p < .001), damage to blood vessels (60% vs 5%, p < .001), further procedures (80% vs 20%, p < .001), and treatment failure (75-80% vs 10-20%, p < .001). However, the gap was lower for intracranial bleeding (5% vs 1%, p = .004), pulmonary embolism (5 vs 5%, p = .39) or death (1% vs 0.75%, p = .77). For the PTS scenario, there were similar results again with a lower difference for pulmonary embolism (10% vs 5%, p = .02) and death (0.5% vs 1%, p = .72). Importantly, patient risk acceptance for major bleeding was negatively correlated to the emotional wellbeing (Rho = -0.43, p = .018) and social functioning (Rho = -0.38, p = .042) SF-36 domains.Conclusion: Overall, patients accepted a greater chance of most adverse events compared with clinicians. Patients prepared to accept greater risk were those with poorer emotional wellbeing and social functioning. It is important to take these issues into account when making shared decisions with patients about the management of their DVT/PTS.
目的:探讨近端深静脉血栓形成(DVT)和血栓形成后综合征(PTS)患者和临床医生可接受的血管内介入治疗并发症的最大风险。设计:这是一项观察性研究,比较患者/临床医生在访谈中的风险接受程度,采用经过验证的标准赌博方法。方法:30名既往深静脉血栓患者和30名血管临床医生被给予一个场景,描述了一个病人正在处理急性髂股深静脉血栓和另一个病人患有PTS的假设病例。受试者被要求提供他们可以接受的个体并发症的最大风险来治愈这种疾病。为了解释变异性,将每位患者的静脉临床严重程度评分、SF-36域和vein - qol与他们在DVT情况下大出血的风险接受度进行对比。结果:在DVT情况下,与临床医生相比,患者在大出血(40%比5%,p < 0.001)、其他部位出血(50%比5%,p < 0.001)、血管损伤(60%比5%,p < 0.001)、进一步手术(80%比20%,p < 0.001)和治疗失败(75-80%比10-20%,p < 0.001)方面接受的中位风险较高。然而,颅内出血(5% vs 1%, p = 0.004)、肺栓塞(5% vs 5%, p = 0.39)或死亡(1% vs 0.75%, p = 0.77)的差异较小。对于PTS方案,也有类似的结果,肺栓塞(10% vs 5%, p = 0.02)和死亡(0.5% vs 1%, p = 0.72)的差异较小。重要的是,患者对大出血的风险接受度与情绪健康(Rho = -0.43, p = 0.018)和社会功能(Rho = -0.38, p = 0.042) SF-36域呈负相关。结论:总体而言,与临床医生相比,患者接受大多数不良事件的可能性更大。准备接受更大风险的患者是那些情绪健康和社会功能较差的患者。在与患者共同决定如何处理深静脉血栓栓塞/PTS时,将这些问题考虑在内是很重要的。