Clinical impact of a structured secondary cardiovascular prevention program following acute coronary syndromes: A prospective multicenter healthcare intervention

Effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation programs on medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Education to improve medication adherence is one of the core components of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of CR programs on medication adherence is conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to summarize the effectiveness of CR programs versus standard care on medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Seven databases and clinical trial registries were searched for published and unpublished articles from database inception to 09 Feb 2022. Only randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were included. Two independent reviewers conducted the screening, extraction, and appraisal. The JBI methodology for effectiveness reviews and PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed. A statistical meta-analysis of included studies was pooled using RevMan version 5.4.1.

Results

In total 33 studies were included with 16,677 participants. CR programs increased medication adherence by 14 % (RR = 1.14; 95 % CI: 1.07 to 1.22; p = 0.0002) with low degree of evidence certainty. CR also lowered the risk of dying by 17 % (RR = 0.83; 95 % CI: 0.69 to 1.00; p = 0.05); primary care and emergency department visit by mean difference of 0.19 (SMD = -0.19; 95 % CI: -0.30 to -0.08; p = 0.0008); and improved quality of life by 0.93 (SMD = 0.93; 95 % CI: 0.38 to 1.49; p = 0.0010). But no significant difference was observed in lipid profiles, except with total cholesterol (SMD = -0.26; 95 % CI: -0.44 to -0.07; p = 0.006) and blood pressure levels.

Conclusions

CR improves medication adherence with a low degree of evidence certainty and non-significant changes in lipid and blood pressure levels. This result requires further investigation.

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based and technology-supported cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation, especially during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009, 2015, and 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of home-based (which may include digital/telehealth interventions) and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 16 September 2022. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, sports/community centre) with home-based programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms) in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, or who had undergone revascularisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on predefined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three new trials in this update, bringing a total of 24 trials that have randomised a total of 3046 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. A further nine studies were identified and are awaiting classification. Manual searching of trial registers until 16 September 2022 revealed a further 14 clinical trial registrations - these are ongoing. Participants had a history of acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation, or heart failure. Although there was little evidence of high risk of bias, a number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias; in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported. No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in our primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow-up: total mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1647; studies = 12/comparisons = 14; low-certainty evidence) or exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.04; participants = 2343; studies = 24/comparisons = 28; low-certainty evidence). The majority of evidence (N=71 / 77 comparisons of either total or domain scores) showed no significant difference in health-related quality of life up to 24 months follow-up between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a similar level of trial completion (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; participants = 2638; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low-certainty evidence) between home-based and centre-based participants. The cost per patient of centre- and home-based programmes was similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update supports previous conclusions that home- (± digital/telehealth platforms) and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation formally supported by healthcare staff seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction, or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of healthcare professional supervised home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms), especially important in the context of the ongoing global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that has much limited patients in face-to-face access of hospital and community health services. Where settings are able to provide both supervised centre- and home-based programmes, consideration of the preference of the individual patient would seem appropriate. Although not included in the scope of this review, there is an increasing evidence base supporting the use of hybrid models that combine elements of both centre-based and home-based cardiac rehabilitation delivery. Further data are needed to determine: (1) whether the short-term effects of home/digital-telehealth and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation models of delivery can be confirmed in the longer term; (2) the relative clinical effectiveness and safety of home-based programmes for other heart patients, e.g. post-valve surgery and atrial fibrillation.

Patient's learning needs and self-efficacy level after percutaneous coronary intervention: A descriptive study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Identify and compare learning needs, levels of self-efficacy and their association among inpatients and outpatients of a cardiac care unit with coronary heart disease who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a Swiss university hospital.

BACKGROUND

After primary PCI, 42% of patients will suffer a recurrent ischemic cardiovascular event. Although adherence to therapeutic regimen contributes to prevent recurrence, patient adherence remains low. To strengthen it, learning needs and self-efficacy must be considered when developing effective therapeutic patient education (TPE).

METHODS

Learning needs and self-efficacy were assessed using the Cardiac Patient Learning Needs Inventory (CPLNI) and the Cardiac Self-Efficacy Scale among inpatients and outpatients. The STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies was used in reporting this study.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients participated in the study with a participation rate of 73.9%. The CPLNI median total score was significantly higher in inpatients than in outpatients: 4.23 (3.82, 4.64) versus 3.67 (3.33, 4.09), p < .001. In both units, participants declared that the most important need was related to 'anatomy and physiology' of the heart. Despite the high score, the least important need was about 'physical activity' for inpatients and 'miscellaneous information' for outpatients. No statistically significant differences were found among patients from both units regarding their self-efficacy level.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that after PCI, patients have high learning needs and moderate levels of self-efficacy that require addressing.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Patient's individual learning needs and self-efficacy level must be assessed prior/after PCI. A tailored TPE that considers individual learning needs and self-efficacy is recommended as a preventative measure to reduce recurrent ischemic cardiovascular events. Nurses can play a key role in this process.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

For feasibility reasons, patients and public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

Teacher-as-actor: Investigating the barriers and facilitators of patient education among hospitalized patients in a cardiology clinical unit

Patient education enables people with cardiovascular disease to develop self-management behaviors. This study aimed to explore facilitators and barriers to teaching patients in a clinical cardiology unit with a single site qualitative investigation involving 21 registered nurses attending four focus groups. This study identified barriers related to patient factors including individual characteristics and responses to education, comorbidities, acuity, and evolving diagnosis, while for nurses the barriers were lack of knowledge and expertise. Barriers associated with the physical environment included nursing workload issues and lack of resources. Facilitators included patients being engaged in the process of education, prepared, and ready to be educated, while a conducive physical environment was also seen as a facilitator. This study exposed inhibiting and enabling variables associated with the exchange between patients and nurses by viewing the nurse and the patient as actors and audience in a theatrical model where communicating to teach patients is seen as a collaborative art. The nurse who understands the barriers and facilitators to teaching will more likely engage the patient in successful learning and development of self-care behaviors.

Prescription Rates for Antiplatelet Therapy (APT) in Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) - What Benchmark are We Aiming at in Continuing Medical Education (CME)?

Physicians always aim to improve their patients' health. CME should be designed not only to provide knowledge transfer, but also to influence clinical decision-making and to close performance gaps. In aretrospective study we analysed prescription rates for APT in 254,932 CAD patients (male: 64.4%), treated in atotal of 3,405 practices in 2019 in aDMP in the region of North Rhine, Germany. Analyses were run for the whole study population stratified by sex as well as for subgroups of patients suffering from myocardial infarction/acute coronary syndrome, or who have been treated with percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery. Patients mean age was 72.7 ± 11.2 years (mean ± 1SD), mean duration of DMP participation was 7.2 ± 4.7 years, and mean cumulative number of DMP visits was 27 ± 17. APT prescription rates were 85.0% in male and 78.8% in female CAD patients. In subgroups of male CAD patients APT prescription rates were between 89.7% and 92.8%, in the same subgroups of female CAD patients the corresponding rates were between 87.8% and 92.0%. Rates for amissing APT prescription per practice were between .0044% and .0062% for male and female CAD patients, respectively. Rates for amissing APT prescription per practice and DMP visit were .0002% for both sexes. These results suggest that a DMP can achieve high attainment rates for APT in CAD. To further improve attainment rates, consideration of absolute numbers of eligible patients per practice or physician is probably more appropriate than expression of performance as percentage values. This is especially true if attainment rates show substantial variations between subgroups, if subgroups show substantial variation in size, if attainment rates are already in the magnitude of 80% or higher, and if there are disparities in the evidence base underlying treatment recommendations related to subgroups.