Attitude and Efficacy of Cardiologists With Respect to Smoking in Patients After Acute Coronary Syndromes.
ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Smoking is one of the most prevalent risk factors in acute coronary syndrome patients. The aim of this study was to assess the attitudes of cardiologists to the smoking habits of these patients METHODS: A prospective multicenter registry of acute coronary syndrome patients. The primary endpoint was defined as smoking abstinence and the secondary endpoint as the incidence of all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction. RESULTS: The study population included 715 patients; 365 were current smokers. During follow-up (median, 375,0 days [interquartile range, 359.3-406.0 days]), 110 patients (30.6%) received smoking cessation support (19.7% at hospital discharge and 37.6% at month 3), specialized units and varenicline being the strategies most frequently used. No clinical differences were observed between patients who received smoking cessation support and those who did not, except for a higher prevalence of previous coronary heart disease in those who received support. In the multivariate analysis, the only variable independently associated with receiving smoking cessation support was previous coronary heart disease (odds ratio=3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-6.11; P<.01). The abstinence rate was 72.3% at month 3 and 67.9% at 1 year; no differences were observed between the patients who received smoking cessation support and those who did not. During follow-up, a nonsignificant trend toward a lower incidence of the secondary endpoint was observed among the patients who were smokers at the time of acute coronary syndrome and who achieved abstinence (P=.07). CONCLUSIONS: Use of smoking cessation support strategies is limited in acute coronary syndrome patients and is more widespread among those with previous coronary heart disease. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org.
- SourceAvailable from: Ramón López-Palop[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This article summarizes the main developments reported during the year 2012 concerning ischemic heart disease, together with the most relevant innovations in the management of acute cardiac patients. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.Revista Espa de Cardiologia 01/2013; · 3.20 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Cardiovascular disease develops in a slow and subclinical manner over decades, only to manifest suddenly and unexpectedly. The role of prevention is crucial, both before and after clinical appearance, and there is ample evidence of the effectiveness and usefulness of the early detection of at-risk individuals and lifestyle modifications or pharmacological approaches. However, these approaches require time, perseverance, and continuous development. The present article reviews the developments in 2013 in epidemiological aspects related to prevention, includes relevant contributions in areas such as diet, weight control methods (obesity is now considered a disease), and physical activity recommendations (with warnings about the risk of strenuous exercise), deals with habit-related psychosocial factors such as smoking, provides an update on emerging issues such as genetics, addresses the links between cardiovascular disease and other pathologies such as kidney disease, summarizes the contributions of new, updated guidelines (3 of which have recently been released on topics of considerable clinical importance: hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease), analyzes the pharmacological advances (largely mediocre except for promising lipid-related results), and finishes by outlining developments in the oft-neglected field of cardiac rehabilitation. This article provides a briefing on controversial issues, presents interesting and somewhat surprising developments, updates established knowledge with undoubted application in clinical practice, and sheds light on potential future contributions.Revista Espanola de Cardiologia 03/2014; 67(3):203-10. · 3.20 Impact Factor
- Revista Clínica Española 08/2013; · 2.01 Impact Factor