Article

A randomized clinical trial of secondary prevention among women hospitalized with coronary heart disease.

Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Journal of Women's Health (Impact Factor: 1.9). 02/2010; 19(2):195-202. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2009.1481
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Secondary prevention improves survival, yet implementation is suboptimal. We tested the impact of a systematic hospital-based educational intervention vs. usual care to improve rates of adherence to secondary prevention guidelines among women hospitalized with coronary heart disease (CHD), according to their ethnic status.
Women (n = 304, 52% minorities) hospitalized with CHD were randomly assigned to a systematic secondary prevention educational intervention vs. usual care. Adherence to goals for smoking cessation, weight management, physical activity, blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L), and use of aspirin/anticoagulants, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors were assessed at 6 months.
On admission, minority women were less likely than white women to meet the goals for blood pressure (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.26-0.80), LDL-C (OR = 0.57, CI 0.33-0.94), and weight management (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.82). There was no difference between the intervention and usual care groups in a summary score of goals met at study completion; however, minority women in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely (95% CI 1.13-5.03) to reach the blood pressure goal at 6 months compared with minority women in usual care. White women in the intervention group were 2.86 times more likely (95% CI 1.06-7.68) to report use of beta-blockers at 6 months compared with white women in usual care. In a logistic regression model, the interaction term for ethnic status and group assignment was significant for achieving the blood pressure goal (p = 0.009).
A healthcare systems approach to educate women about secondary prevention and blood pressure control may differentially benefit ethnic minority women compared with white women.

0 Followers
 · 
99 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Regular exercise has been shown to be beneficial to patients with heart disease. Previous studies have indicated that health education can effectively increase participants' physical activity. However, no systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of health education programs on changing exercise behavior among patients with heart disease. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of health education programs on exercise behavior among heart disease patients. Potential studies were retrieved in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMbase, PsycINFO, the British Nursing Index and Archive, Science Direct, and ERIC via EBSCOhost. Meta-analysis was done using the random-effect model. Thirty-seven studies were identified. Only 12 studies delivered health education based on various theories/models. Twenty-eight studies were included in the meta-analyses. The results showed that health education had significantly positive effects on exercise adherence (risk ratio = 1.35 to 1.48), exercise duration (SMD = 0.25 to 0.69), exercise frequency (MD = 0.54 to 1.46 session/week), and exercise level (SMD = 0.25), while no significant effects were found on exercise energy expenditure and cognitive exercise behavior. Health education has overall positive effects on changing exercise behavior among heart disease patients. Few theoretical underpinning studies were conducted for changing exercise behavior among heart disease patients. The findings suggest that health education improves exercise behavior for heart disease patients. Health professionals should reinforce health education programs for them.
    Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 11/2013; 6(4):265-301. DOI:10.1111/jebm.12063
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Smoking contributes to reasons for hospitalisation, and the period of hospitalisation may be a good time to provide help with quitting. To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation that are initiated for hospitalised patients. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register which includes papers identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO in December 2011 for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, using terms including (hospital and patient*) or hospitali* or inpatient* or admission* or admitted. Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking, conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters (defined as having quit more than one month before hospital admission). The intervention had to start in the hospital but could continue after hospital discharge. We excluded studies of patients admitted to facilities that primarily treat psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, studies that did not report abstinence rates and studies with follow-up of less than six months. Both acute care hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals were included in this update, with separate analyses done for each type of hospital. Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive counselling interventions that began during the hospital stay and continued with supportive contacts for at least one month after discharge increased smoking cessation rates after discharge (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.48; 25 trials). A specific benefit for post-discharge contact compared with usual care was found in a subset of trials in which all participants received a counselling intervention in the hospital and were randomly assigned to post-discharge contact or usual care. No statistically significant benefit was found for less intensive counselling interventions. Adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to an intensive counselling intervention increased smoking cessation rates compared with intensive counselling alone (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.79, six trials). Adding varenicline to intensive counselling had a non-significant effect in two trials (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.74). Adding bupropion did not produce a statistically significant increase in cessation over intensive counselling alone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45, three trials). A similar pattern of results was observed in a subgroup of smokers admitted to hospital because of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this subgroup, intensive intervention with follow-up support increased the rate of smoking cessation (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.56), but less intensive interventions did not. One trial of intensive intervention including counselling and pharmacotherapy for smokers admitted with CVD assessed clinical and health care utilization endpoints, and found significant reductions in all-cause mortality and hospital readmission rates over a two-year follow-up period. These trials were all conducted in acute care hospitals. A comparable increase in smoking cessation rates was observed in a separate pooled analysis of intensive counselling interventions in rehabilitation hospitals (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.14, three trials). High intensity behavioural interventions that begin during a hospital stay and include at least one month of supportive contact after discharge promote smoking cessation among hospitalised patients. The effect of these interventions was independent of the patient's admitting diagnosis and was found in rehabilitation settings as well as acute care hospitals. There was no evidence of effect for interventions of lower intensity or shorter duration. This update found that adding NRT to intensive counselling significantly increases cessation rates over counselling alone. There is insufficient direct evidence to conclude that adding bupropion or varenicline to intensive counselling increases cessation rates over what is achieved by counselling alone.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; 5(5):CD001837. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD001837.pub3 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a complex multifaceted intervention consisting of three core modalities: education, exercise training and psychological support. Whilst exercise and psychological interventions for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) have been the subject of Cochrane systematic reviews, the specific impact of the educational component of CR has not previously been investigated. 1. Assess effects of patient education on mortality, morbidity, health-related quality of life (HRQofL) and healthcare costs in patients with CHD.2. Explore study level predictors of the effects of patient education (e.g. individual versus group intervention, timing with respect to index cardiac event). The following databases were searched: The Cochrane Library, (CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE, HTA, NHSEED), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). Previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies were also searched. No language restrictions were applied. 1. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the primary interventional intent was education.2. Studies with a minimum of six-months follow-up and published in 1990 or later.3. Adults with diagnosis of CHD. Two review authors selected studies and extracted data. Attempts were made to contact all study authors to obtain relevant information not available in the published manuscript. For dichotomous variables, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for each outcome. For continuous variables, mean differences and 95% CI were calculated for each outcome. Thirteen RCTs involving 68,556 subjects with CHD and follow-up from six to 60 months were found. Overall, methodological quality of included studies was moderate to good. Educational 'dose' ranged from a total of two clinic visits to a four-week residential stay with 11 months of follow-up sessions. Control groups typically received usual medical care. There was no strong evidence of an effect of education on all-cause mortality (Relative Risk (RR): 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13), cardiac morbidity (subsequent myocardial infarction RR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48, revascularisation RR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.71) or hospitalisation (RR: 0.83, 95% CI:0.65 to 1.07). Whilst some HRQofL domain scores were higher with education, there was no consistent evidence of superiority across all domains. Different currencies and years studies were performed making direct comparison of healthcare costs challenging, although there is evidence to suggest education may be cost-saving by reducing subsequent healthcare utilisation.This review had insufficient power to exclude clinically important effects of education on mortality and morbidity of patients with CHD. We did not find strong evidence that education reduced all cause mortality, cardiac morbidity, revascularisation or hospitalisation compared to control. There was some evidence to suggest that education may improve HRQofL and reduce overall healthcare costs. Whilst our findings are generally supportive of current guidelines that CR should include not only exercise and psychological interventions, further research into education is needed.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2011; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD008895.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from