Informed Consent before coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention from the patient's perspective: A picture is worth a thousand words.

Background: Patients scheduled for coronary angiography may feel insufficiently informed about the planned procedure. We aimed to evaluate the patient-rated quality of the Informed Consent (IC) process and to investigate the efficacy of medical graphics to assist and improve the IC procedure.
Methods: A graphic-based information broschure illustrating central steps of the procedure was created in collaboration with scientific illustrators. In a randomized, controlled, prospective trial, 121 patients undergoing coronary angiography/PCI were randomized to a group obtaining the usual IC (Control group) or to a group that additionally obtained a graphic-based IC (Comic group). The perceived quality of the IC was compared between groups using single items of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 and self-designed single items.
Results: Only 67.8% of patients stated to have completely read the standard written IC sheet. The quality of the IC was perceived to be very good in 45.0% of patients in the Comic group compared to 24.6% in the Control group ( p =.023 ). 57.4% of the Control group compared to 76.7% of the Comic group stated that all of their questions were satisfactorily adressed ( p =.015). 43.3% of the Comic group, in contrast to only 18.0% of the Control group, declared to feel "very satisfied" with the obtained IC procedure ( p =.002 ). The acceptance of this new IC approach was very high: no patient expressed feelings of not being taken seriously when reading medical graphics.
Conclusions: Our data confirm pronounced limitations of the usual IC practice. The use of medical graphics positively impacts on patient-evaluated endpoints and may significantly improve the IC procedure.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.)