BACKGROUND: Cardiac disease management programmes (CHD-DMPs) and secondary cardiovascular prevention guidelines aim to improve complex care of post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients. In Germany, CHD-DMPs, in addition to incorporating medical care according to guidelines (guideline-care), also ensure regular quarterly follow-up. Thus, our aim was to examine whether CHD-DMPs increase the frequency of guideline-care and whether CHD-DMPs and guideline-care improve survival over 4 years. METHODS: The study included 975 post-MI patients, registered by the KORA-MI Registry (Augsburg, Germany), who completed a questionnaire in 2006. CHD-DMP enrolment was reported by physicians. Guideline-care was based on patient reports regarding medical advice (smoking, diet, or exercise) and prescribed medications (statins and platelet aggregation inhibitors plus beta-blockers or renin-angiotensin inhibitors). All-cause mortality until December 31, 2010 was based on municipal registration data. Cox regression analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, years since last MI, and smoking and diabetes. RESULTS: Physicians reported that 495 patients were CHD-DMP participants. CHD-DMP participation increased the likelihood of receiving guideline-care (odds ratio 1.55, 95% CI 1.20; 2.02) but did not significantly improve survival (hazard rate 0.90, 95% CI 0.64-1.27). Guideline-care significantly improved survival (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28; 0.59). Individual guideline-care components, which significantly improved survival, were beta-blockers, statins and platelet aggregation inhibitors. However, these improved survival less than guideline-care. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that CHD-DMPs increase the likelihood of guideline care and that guideline care is the important component of CHD-DMPs for increasing survival. A relatively high percentage of usual care patients receiving guideline-care indicate high quality of care of post-MI patients. Reasons for not implementing guideline-care should be investigated.
BACKGROUND:Cardiac disease management programmes (CHD-DMPs) and secondary cardiovascular prevention guidelines aim to improve complex care of post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients. In Germany, CHD-DMPs, in addition to incorporating medical care according to guidelines (guideline-care), also ensure regular quarterly follow-up. Thus, our aim was to examine whether CHD-DMPs increase the frequency of guideline-care and whether CHD-DMPs and guideline-care improve survival over 4 years. METHODS: The study included 975 post-MI patients, registered by the KORA-MI Registry (Augsburg, Germany), who completed a questionnaire in 2006. CHD-DMP enrolment was reported by physicians. Guideline-care was based on patient reports regarding medical advice (smoking, diet, or exercise) and prescribed medications (statins and platelet aggregation inhibitors plus beta-blockers or renin-angiotensin inhibitors). All-cause mortality until December 31, 2010 was based on municipal registration data. Cox regression analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, years since last MI, and smoking and diabetes. RESULTS: Physicians reported that 495 patients were CHD-DMPparticipants. CHD-DMP participation increased the likelihood of receiving guideline-care (odds ratio 1.55, 95% CI 1.20; 2.02) but did not significantly improve survival (hazard rate 0.90, 95% CI 0.64-1.27). Guideline-care significantly improved survival (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28; 0.59). Individual guideline-care components, which significantly improved survival, were beta-blockers, statins and platelet aggregation inhibitors. However, these improved survival less than guideline-care. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that CHD-DMPs increase the likelihood of guideline care and that guideline care is the important component of CHD-DMPs for increasing survival. A relatively high percentage of usual care patients receiving guideline-care indicate high quality of care of post-MI patients. Reasons for not implementing guideline-care should be investigated.
Authors: Sidney C Smith; Jerilyn Allen; Steven N Blair; Robert O Bonow; Lawrence M Brass; Gregg C Fonarow; Scott M Grundy; Loren Hiratzka; Daniel Jones; Harlan M Krumholz; Lori Mosca; Richard C Pasternak; Thomas Pearson; Marc A Pfeffer; Kathryn A Taubert Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-05-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ramón Estruch; Emilio Ros; Jordi Salas-Salvadó; Maria-Isabel Covas; Dolores Corella; Fernando Arós; Enrique Gómez-Gracia; Valentina Ruiz-Gutiérrez; Miquel Fiol; José Lapetra; Rosa Maria Lamuela-Raventos; Lluís Serra-Majem; Xavier Pintó; Josep Basora; Miguel Angel Muñoz; José V Sorlí; José Alfredo Martínez; Miguel Angel Martínez-González Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stefanie Joos; Thomas Rosemann; Marc Heiderhoff; Michel Wensing; Sabine Ludt; Jochen Gensichen; Petra Kaufmann-Kolle; Joachim Szecsenyi Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2005-10-04 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Colin Baigent; Lisa Blackwell; Rory Collins; Jonathan Emberson; Jon Godwin; Richard Peto; Julie Buring; Charles Hennekens; Patricia Kearney; Tom Meade; Carlo Patrono; Maria Carla Roncaglioni; Alberto Zanchetti Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-05-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christoph B Olivier; Katharina Schnabel; Christoph Brandt; Patrick Weik; Manfred Olschewski; Qian Zhou; Christoph Bode; Philipp Diehl; Martin Moser Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Kayvan Bozorgmehr; Miguel San Sebastian; Hermann Brenner; Oliver Razum; Werner Maier; Kai-Uwe Saum; Bernd Holleczek; Antje Miksch; Joachim Szecsenyi Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2015-03-10
Authors: Kayvan Bozorgmehr; Werner Maier; Hermann Brenner; Kai-Uwe Saum; Christian Stock; Antje Miksch; Bernd Holleczek; Joachim Szecsenyi; Oliver Razum Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 3.710