Clinical Trials| Volume 24, ISSUE 10, P661-671, October 2018

Download started.


A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient-Centered Ventricular Assist Device Decision Aid (VADDA Trial)

Published:September 06, 2018DOI:



      Studies indicate that decision making and informed consent among patients considering left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support for advanced heart failure could be improved. In the VADDA (Ventricular Assist Device Decision Aid) trial, we tested a patient-centered decision aid (DA) to enhance the quality of decision making about LVAD therapy.


      After an extensive user-centered design process, we conducted a multisite randomized trial of the DA compared with standard education (SE) among inpatients considering LVAD treatment for advanced heart failure The main outcome was LVAD knowledge at 1 week and 1 month after administration of the DA versus the SE, according to a validated scale. Secondary measures included prespecified quality decision making measures recommended by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards collaboration.


      Of 105 eligible patients, 98 consented and were randomly assigned to the DA and SE arms. Patients receiving the VADDA exhibited significantly greater LVAD knowledge than the SE group at 1 week of follow-up (P = .01) but not at 1 month (P = .47). No differences were found between DA and SE patients in rates of acceptance versus decline of LVAD treatment (85% vs 78%; P = .74). Recipients in the DA arm reported greater satisfaction with life after implantation compared with nonrecipients (28 vs 23 out of 30; P = .008), although both arms reported high satisfaction. Patients rated the DA high in acceptability and usability.


      The VADDA enhances LVAD knowledge, particularly in the short term (1 week) during the peak period of decision making. The DA does not encourage decision direction and reflects patient, caregiver, and physician preferences for content and format.

      Clinical Trial Registration The trial is registered with (NCT02248974).
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Cardiac Failure
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Kirklin JK
        • Naftel DC
        • Pagani FD
        • Kormos RL
        • Stevenson LW
        • Blume ED
        • Myers SL
        • et al.
        Seventh INTERMACS annual report: 15,000 patients and counting.
        J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015; 34: 1495-1504
        • Kirkpatrick J
        • Hull S
        • Kellom K
        • Henderson R
        • Barg F
        Pumped up, but not prepared: examining LVAD-DT patients’ comprehension of advance directive specifications.
        J Card Fail. 2012; 18: S37
        • Stiles S.
        “Too sick to understand”: doctor-patient device communication falls short.
        Medscape. September 19, 2012;
        • Blumenthal-Barby JS
        • Kostick KM
        • Delgado ED
        • Volk RJ
        • Kaplan HM
        • Wilhelms LA
        • et al
        Assessment of patients’ and caregivers’ informational and decisional needs for left ventricular assist device placement: implications for informed consent and shared decision-making.
        J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015; 34: 1182-1189
        • McIlvennan CK
        • Allen LA
        • Nowels C
        • Brieke A
        • Cleveland JC
        • Matlock DD
        Decision making for destination therapy left ventricular assist devices “there was no choice” versus “I thought about it an awful lot.”.
        Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014; 7: 374-380
        • Bruce CR
        • Allen NG
        • Fahy BN
        • Gordon HL
        • Suarez EE
        • Bruckner BA
        Challenges in deactivating a total artificial heart for a patient with capacity.
        Chest. 2014; 145: 625-631
        • Bruce CR
        • Smith ML
        • McCullough LB
        Clarification of the intent of ventricular assist devices before patient consent.
        J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013; 145: 1423-1425
        • Entwistle JW
        • Sade RM
        • Petrucci RJ
        The ethics of mechanical support: the need for new guidelines.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2011; 92: 1939
        • Allen LA
        • Stevenson LW
        • Grady KL
        • Goldstein NE
        • Matlock DD
        • Arnold RM
        • et al
        Decision making in advanced heart failure a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.
        Circulation. 2012; 125: 1928-1952
        • Grady KL
        • Meyer PM
        • Dressler D
        • White-Williams C
        • Kaan A
        • Mattea A
        • Ormaza S
        • et al.
        Change in quality of life from after left ventricular assist device implantation to after heart transplantation.
        J Heart Lung Transplant. 2003; 22: 1254-1267
        • Whitney SN
        • McGuire AL
        • McCullough LB
        A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent.
        Ann Intern Med. 2004; 140: 54-59
      1. Grady KL, Stevenson LW, Pagani FD, Teuteberg J, Pamboukian SV, Birks E, et al. Beyond survival: recommendations from INTERMACS for assessing function and quality of life with mechanical circulatory support. 2012.

      2. Rector TS, Taylor BC, Greer N, Rutks I. Use of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy in end-stage congestive heart failure: a systematic review. 2012.

        • Kostick K
        • Delgado ED
        • Wilhelms LA
        • Bruce CR
        • Estep JD
        • Loebe M
        • et al
        Development and pilot testing of a patient decision aid for left ventricular assist device placement.
        VAD J. 2016; 2: 1
        • Kostick KM
        • Minard CG
        • Wilhelms L
        • Delgado E
        • Abraham M
        • Bruce CR
        • et al
        Development and validation of a patient-centered knowledge scale for left ventricular assist device placement.
        J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016; 35: 768-776
        • O'Connor AM
        • Bennett CL
        • Stacey D
        • Barry M
        • Col NF
        • Eden KB
        • Entwistle VA
        • et al
        Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.
        Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 3. 2009;
        • Elwyn G
        • O'Connor A
        • Stacey D
        • Volk R
        • Edwards A
        • Coulter A
        • et al.
        Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process.
        BMJ. 2006; 333: 417
        • Maldonado JR
        • Dubois HC
        • David EE
        • Sher Y
        • Lolak S
        • Dyal J
        • Witten D
        The Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplantation (SIPAT): a new tool for the psychosocial evaluation of pre-transplant candidates.
        Psychosomatics. 2012; 53: 123-132
        • Bruce CR
        • Majumder MA
        • Loebe M
        Patient-to-patient encounters: benefits and challenges.
        . J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 658-659
        • O'Connor AM
        Validation of a decisional conflict scale.
        Med Decis Making. 1995; 15: 25-30
        • Holmes-Rovner M
        • Kroll J
        • Schmitt N
        • Rovner DR
        • Breer ML
        • Rothert ML
        • et al.
        Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the Satisfaction With Decision Scale.
        Med Decis Making. 1996; 16: 58-64
        • Brehaut JC
        • O'Connor AM
        • Wood TJ
        • Hack TF
        • Siminoff L
        • Gordon E
        • Feldman-Stewart D
        Validation of a decision regret scale.
        Med Decis Making. 2003; 23: 281-292
        • Elwyn G
        • Barr PJ
        • Grande SW
        • Thompson R
        • Walsh T
        • Ozanne EM
        Developing CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters.
        Patient Educ Couns. 2013; 93: 102-107
        • Kriston L
        • Scholl I
        • Hölzel L
        • Simon D
        • Loh A
        • Härter M
        The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample.
        Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 80: 94-99
        • Degner LF
        • Sloan JA
        • Venkatesh P
        The Control Preferences Scale.
        Can J Nurs Res Arch. 1997; 29
        • Diener E
        • Emmons RA
        • Larsen RJ
        • Griffin S
        The Satisfaction With Life Scale.
        J Pers Assess. 1985; 49: 71-75
        • Brehaut JC
        • Graham ID
        • Wood TJ
        • Taljaard M
        • Eagles D
        • Lott A
        • et al
        Measuring acceptability of clinical decision rules: validation of the Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Instrument (OADRI) in four countries.
        Med Decis Making. 2010; 30: 398-408
        • Suresh K.
        An overview of randomization techniques: an unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research.
        J Hum Reprod Sci. 2011; 4: 8
        • Sepucha K
        • Thomson R
        • Borkhoff C
        • Lally J
        • Levin C
        • Matlock D
        • et al
        2012 update of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) collaboration: background document.
        Chapter L. 2012; ([])
        • Stacey D
        • Légaré F
        • Krystina L
        • Barry MJ
        • Bennett CL
        • Eden KB
        • Holmes-Rovner M
        • et al
        Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.
        Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 4. 2017; 10
        • Allen LA
        • McIlvennan CK
        • Thompson JS
        • Dunlay SM
        • LaRue SJ
        • Lewis EF
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of an intervention supporting shared decision making for destination therapy left ventricular assist device: the DECIDE-LVAD randomized clinical trial.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2018;
        • Gallo JJ
        • Andersen MS
        • Hwang S
        • Meoni L
        • Jayadevappa R
        Physician preferences for aggressive treatment at the end of life and area-level health care spending: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study.
        Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2017; 32333721417722328
        • Bruce CR
        A review of ethical considerations for ventricular assist device placement in older adults.
        Aging Dis. 2013; 4: 100