Résumé
prior information in the realization of an invasive intervention is crucial. Indeed, the patient has to know theorically his disease, diagnostic and therapeutic means, but also the risks of the used technique. The habits of information vary many from one center to another, in spite of the proposition of an information leaflet written by the French Society of Cardiology. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of the written information on patients admitted for coronary arteriography.
Among patients hospitalized for realization of a programmed coronarography, a questionnaire was delivered before the information leaflet. Patients are asked questions tested (27 items) before and after the reading of the information sheet (not limited time), about coronarography indication, modalities, benefits, possible complications,…
34 patients were included: all knew hospitalization reason, 86% were men, middle-aged 65 (IC95% 60–70). 34% (15–54) had studied in higher education. 97% had had information before. Only 56% (38–74) were informed about the mode of anesthesia, 36% (19–53) duration, 69% (53–86) the injection of iodine, 44% the risk of allergy, 53% the risk of bruise, 15% of the cardiac risks, 21% the renal risks. 71% knew the diagnostic benefits, 44% the possible coronary angioplasty, 17% the eventuality of a bypass surgery. The delivery of the information leaflet didn’t modify the knowledge on most of these items, in particular the modalities and the profits. The risks were known significantly better for the allergy (p = 0.019), the bruise (p = 0.018), the cardiac risks (0.001).
The population benefiting from a coronarography considers to be enough informed. However, knowledge of the modalities, profits and risks are very low. The delivery of the consensual leaflet doesn’t allow improving the situation, except as far as concerned the complications. Better information is necessary.