Publications

OBJECTIVE

To examine differences in treatment decision-making participation, satisfaction, and regret among Latinas and non-Latina whites with DCIS.

METHODS

Survey of Latina and non-Latina white women diagnosed with DCIS. We assessed women's preferences for involvement in decision-making, primary treatment decision maker, and participatory decision-making. We examined primary outcomes of satisfaction with treatment decision-making and treatment regret by ethnic-language group.

RESULTS

Among 745 participants (349 Latinas, 396 white) Spanish-speaking Latinas (SSL) had the highest mean preference for involvement in decision-making score and the lowest mean participatory decision-making score and were more likely to defer their final treatment decision to their physicians than English-speaking Latinas or whites (26%, 13%, 18%, p<0.05). SSLs reported lower satisfaction with treatment decision-making (OR 0.4; CI 95%, 0.2-0.8) and expressed more regret than whites (OR 6.2; CI 95%, 3.0-12.4). More participatory decision-making increased the odds of satisfaction (OR 1.5; CI 95%, 1.3-1.8) and decreased the odds of treatment regret (OR 0.8; CI 95%, 0.7-1.0), independent of ethnicity-language.

CONCLUSION

Language barriers impede the establishment of decision-making partnerships between Latinas and their physicians, and result in less satisfaction with the decision-making process and more treatment regret.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Use of professional interpreters may address communication-related disparities for these women.

BACKGROUND

Transseptal puncture is a critical step in achieving left atrial (LA) access for a variety of cardiac procedures. Although the mechanical Brockenbrough needle has historically been used for this procedure, a needle employing radiofrequency (RF) energy has more recently been approved for clinical use. We sought to investigate the comparative effectiveness of an RF versus conventional needle for transseptal LA access.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this prospective, single-blinded, controlled trial, 72 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to an RF versus conventional (BRK-1) transseptal needle. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was time required for transseptal LA access. Secondary outcomes included failure of the assigned needle, visible plastic dilator shavings from needle introduction, and any procedural complication. The median transseptal puncture time was 68% shorter using the RF needle compared with the conventional needle (2.3 minutes [interquartile range {IQR}, 1.7 to 3.8 minutes] versus 7.3 minutes [IQR, 2.7 to 14.1 minutes], P = 0.005). Failure to achieve transseptal LA access with the assigned needle was less common using the RF versus conventional needle (0/36 [0%] versus 10/36 [27.8%], P < 0.001). Plastic shavings were grossly visible after needle advancement through the dilator and sheath in 0 (0%) RF needle cases and 12 (33.3%) conventional needle cases (P < 0.001). There were no differences in procedural complications (1/36 [2.8%] versus 1/36 [2.8%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an RF needle resulted in shorter time to transseptal LA access, less failure in achieving transseptal LA access, and fewer visible plastic shavings.