BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In spite of publication of many guidelines, management of patients on secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease is still not appropriated. We design a randomized trial, in usual clinical practice conditions, to compare the results in cardiovascular morbimortality of intensive and integral management of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) management versus conventional care. PATIENTS AND METHOD: We selected patients discharged between October 2002 and January 2004 who suffered an acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation or a stroke, 247 patients that met inclusions criteria were randomized to intensive care of CVRF in a specific Internal Medicine outpatient clinic (n = 121) or usual care according to National Health Service recommendations (n = 126). A year after randomization, the percentage of patients who met CVRF control, treatment received and the number of cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation, stroke, transient ischemic attack, revascularization, lower limb amputation, heart failure admission and sudden death) were revised. RESULTS:CVRF control was greater in patients assigned to intensive care. 74.1% of hypertensive patients assigned to this treatment were controlled vs 41.7% in the usual care group (relative risk [RR] = 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-2-49); 70.2% of patients had low-densi-tiy lipoprotein cholesterol lower than 100 mg/dl vs 55.8% (RR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.00-1.58) of patients in usual care group; 93.1% of diabetic patients had glycosylated haemoglobin lower than 7% vs. 57.1% (RR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.11-2.39) in the usual care group. There were 12 cardiovascular events in the intensive care group vs 35 in the usual care group. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive management of CVRF leads to a better control of them and a reduction of the morbimortality one year after an acute cardiovascular event.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In spite of publication of many guidelines, management of patients on secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease is still not appropriated. We design a randomized trial, in usual clinical practice conditions, to compare the results in cardiovascular morbimortality of intensive and integral management of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) management versus conventional care. PATIENTS AND METHOD: We selected patients discharged between October 2002 and January 2004 who suffered an acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation or a stroke, 247 patients that met inclusions criteria were randomized to intensive care of CVRF in a specific Internal Medicine outpatient clinic (n = 121) or usual care according to National Health Service recommendations (n = 126). A year after randomization, the percentage of patients who met CVRF control, treatment received and the number of cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation, stroke, transient ischemic attack, revascularization, lower limb amputation, heart failure admission and sudden death) were revised. RESULTS: CVRF control was greater in patients assigned to intensive care. 74.1% of hypertensivepatients assigned to this treatment were controlled vs 41.7% in the usual care group (relative risk [RR] = 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-2-49); 70.2% of patients had low-densi-tiy lipoprotein cholesterol lower than 100 mg/dl vs 55.8% (RR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.00-1.58) of patients in usual care group; 93.1% of diabeticpatients had glycosylated haemoglobin lower than 7% vs. 57.1% (RR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.11-2.39) in the usual care group. There were 12 cardiovascular events in the intensive care group vs 35 in the usual care group. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive management of CVRF leads to a better control of them and a reduction of the morbimortality one year after an acute cardiovascular event.
Authors: Stefanie Leistner; Georg Michelson; Inga Laumeier; Michael Ahmadi; Maureen Smyth; Gabriele Nieweler; Wolfram Doehner; Jan Sobesky; Jochen B Fiebach; Peter Marx; Otto Busse; Friedrich Köhler; Holger Poppert; Martin L J Wimmer; Thomas Knoll; Paul Von Weitzel-Mudersbach; Heinrich J Audebert Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Bernadeta Bridgwood; Kate E Lager; Amit K Mistri; Kamlesh Khunti; Andrew D Wilson; Priya Modi Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-05-07
Authors: Stefanie Leistner; Steffen Benik; Inga Laumeier; Annerose Ziegler; Gabriele Nieweler; Christian H Nolte; Peter U Heuschmann; Heinrich J Audebert Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 3.240