Although it is not clear whether this is primarily because of patient or physician preference, there is consistency in patient misperception of the benefit of PCI. 8 The treatment of stable CAD represents a preferencesensitive decision with comparable, alternative treatments. Shared decision making (SDM), as a "process of interacting with patients who wish to be involved in arriving at an informed, values-based choice among…medically reasonable alternatives," 9 offers a unique approach to healthcare delivery of patients with stable CAD. Decision aids may help Background-Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable coronary artery disease does not reduce the risk of death and myocardial infarction compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT), but many patients think otherwise. PCI Choice, a decision aid (DA), was designed for use during the clinical visit and includes information on quality of life and mortality outcomes for PCI with OMT versus OMT alone for stable coronary artery disease. Methods and Results-We conducted a randomized trial to assess the impact of the PCI Choice DA compared with usual care when there is a choice between PCI and optimal medical therapy. Primary outcomes were patient knowledge and decisional conflict, and the secondary outcome was an objective measure of shared decision making. A total of 124 patients were eligible for final analysis. Knowledge was higher among patients receiving the DA compared with usual care (60% DA; 40% usual care; P=0.034), and patients felt more informed (P=0.043). Other measures of decisional quality were not improved, and engagement of the patient by the clinician in shared decision making did not change with use of the DA. There was evidence that clinicians used the DA as an educational tool. Conclusions-The PCI Choice DA improved patient knowledge but did not significantly impact decisional quality. Further work is needed to effectively address clinician knowledge gaps in shared decision-making skills, even in the context of carefully designed DAs. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01771536.(Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016;9:767-776.

Background: Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been shown to reduce the risk of death and myocardial infarction (MI) for stable coronary artery disease (CAD), many patients believe that PCI is a life-saving procedure. PCI for stable CAD is known to improve patients’ quality of life more rapidly than medications alone. We conducted a randomized trial to assess the impact of a decision aid (DA) compared to usual care (UC) for the treatment of stable CAD when there is a choice between PCI and optimal medical therapy (OMT). Methods: The PCI Choice trial was a prospective, randomized trial comparing the effects of DA versus UC. The DA was designed with a user-centered approach for an in-visit consultation, involving patients and clinicians throughout the development process. The final DA included information on myocardial infarction (MI), death and quality of life outcomes for PCI with OMT vs. OMT alone in the treatment of stable angina, stratified by angina type. Risks of procedure, bleeding, stent thrombosis, and need for future procedures were also depicted. The primary outcome was patient knowledge, measured by pre- and post-visit surveys. Additional outcomes included decisional conflict, patient satisfaction, preferred decision making style, and treatment decision. Results: A total of 110 patients were enrolled; mean age was 68.3 years and 26% of patients were women. At baseline, most patients had CCS Class I/II angina and were on a mean of two anti-anginal medications (2.3, SD 1.2). Knowledge increased among patients receiving DA compared to UC (63% vs. 44% p=0.0003). Specific knowledge about the impact of PCI for stable angina on death and MI was higher in both groups compared to prior studies (54% DA, 46% UC, p=0.45; 12% prior). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the DA group vs. UC (72% vs 40%, p=0.004). Decisional conflict was greater than in non-procedural DA trials, and was not different between the two arms (p=.43). Following exposure to DA, patients’ preference for sharing decision making tended to change more with DA (55% to 65%) than with UC (56% to 59%). While the proportion of patients choosing PCI over OMT was nearly half in both groups, there were fewer patients that remained undecided with DA (18% vs. 4%; p=0.14 overall difference). Conclusions: Exposure to a DA for the choice of PCI vs. optimal medical therapy in stable CAD improved patient knowledge and satisfaction and decreased uncertainty, without reducing the rate of PCI. Use of the DA in a larger patient population may further delineate impact on outcomes such as treatment choice, geographic variation and cost.