BACKGROUND: The cardioprotective effects of intensive lifestyle regimens in primary prevention have been elucidated; however, there is a paucity of data comparing the effects of different lifestyle regimens in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) or CAD equivalent, specifically vis-à-vis carotid plaque regression. METHODS: We performed a randomized, single-center, single-blind study in 120 patients with established CAD. Patients were randomly assigned to either 9 months of the Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP), an outpatient lifestyle enrichment program that focuses on improving dietary choices, enhancing daily exercise, increasing support systems, and decreasing stress; or to 9 months of an ad hoc, nonsequential combination of various healthy living classes offered separately through a health maintenance organization and referred to as the Healthy Heart program. Baseline and 9-month change in carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) were measured. RESULTS: Among 120 participants, data were analyzed for 79, of which 68 (86%) completed the study. Both average CIMT and average maximum CIMT increased over 9 months, but the changes between groups were insignificant. There were marked differences in the mean body mass index favoring the CHIP group (-1.9 [standard deviation = 1.9]; p < 0.001) and statistically significant within-group improvements in blood pressure, triglyceride level, 6-minute walk test result, self-assessment well-being score, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score that were not observed between groups. CONCLUSION: Neither the CHIP nor Healthy Heart was effective in inducing plaque regression in patients with established CAD after a 9-month period. However, both were effective in improving several CAD risk factors, which shows that the nonsequential offering of healthy lifestyle programs can lead to similar outcomes as a formal, sequential, established program (CHIP) in many aspects. These results have important implications as to how lifestyle changes will be implemented as tertiary prevention measures in the future.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The cardioprotective effects of intensive lifestyle regimens in primary prevention have been elucidated; however, there is a paucity of data comparing the effects of different lifestyle regimens in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) or CAD equivalent, specifically vis-à-vis carotid plaque regression. METHODS: We performed a randomized, single-center, single-blind study in 120 patients with established CAD. Patients were randomly assigned to either 9 months of the Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP), an outpatient lifestyle enrichment program that focuses on improving dietary choices, enhancing daily exercise, increasing support systems, and decreasing stress; or to 9 months of an ad hoc, nonsequential combination of various healthy living classes offered separately through a health maintenance organization and referred to as the Healthy Heart program. Baseline and 9-month change in carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) were measured. RESULTS: Among 120 participants, data were analyzed for 79, of which 68 (86%) completed the study. Both average CIMT and average maximum CIMT increased over 9 months, but the changes between groups were insignificant. There were marked differences in the mean body mass index favoring the CHIP group (-1.9 [standard deviation = 1.9]; p < 0.001) and statistically significant within-group improvements in blood pressure, triglyceride level, 6-minute walk test result, self-assessment well-being score, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score that were not observed between groups. CONCLUSION: Neither the CHIP nor Healthy Heart was effective in inducing plaque regression in patients with established CAD after a 9-month period. However, both were effective in improving several CAD risk factors, which shows that the nonsequential offering of healthy lifestyle programs can lead to similar outcomes as a formal, sequential, established program (CHIP) in many aspects. These results have important implications as to how lifestyle changes will be implemented as tertiary prevention measures in the future.
Authors: E de Groot; J W Jukema; A D Montauban van Swijndregt; A H Zwinderman; R G Ackerstaff; A F van der Steen; N Bom; K I Lie; A V Bruschke Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Harlan M Krumholz; Yun Wang; Jersey Chen; Elizabeth E Drye; John A Spertus; Joseph S Ross; Jeptha P Curtis; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Judith H Lichtman; Edward P Havranek; Frederick A Masoudi; Martha J Radford; Lein F Han; Michael T Rapp; Barry M Straube; Sharon-Lise T Normand Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hester M Den Ruijter; Sanne A E Peters; Todd J Anderson; Annie R Britton; Jacqueline M Dekker; Marinus J Eijkemans; Gunnar Engström; Gregory W Evans; Jacqueline de Graaf; Diederick E Grobbee; Bo Hedblad; Albert Hofman; Suzanne Holewijn; Ai Ikeda; Maryam Kavousi; Kazuo Kitagawa; Akihiko Kitamura; Hendrik Koffijberg; Eva M Lonn; Matthias W Lorenz; Ellisiv B Mathiesen; Giel Nijpels; Shuhei Okazaki; Daniel H O'Leary; Joseph F Polak; Jackie F Price; Christine Robertson; Christopher M Rembold; Maria Rosvall; Tatjana Rundek; Jukka T Salonen; Matthias Sitzer; Coen D A Stehouwer; Jacqueline C Witteman; Karel G Moons; Michiel L Bots Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: C Michael Gibson; Yuri B Pride; Paul D Frederick; Charles V Pollack; John G Canto; Alan J Tiefenbrunn; W Douglas Weaver; Costas T Lambrew; William J French; Eric D Peterson; William J Rogers Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2008-11-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: D Ornish; S E Brown; L W Scherwitz; J H Billings; W T Armstrong; T A Ports; S M McLanahan; R L Kirkeeide; R J Brand; K L Gould Journal: Lancet Date: 1990-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Earl S Ford; Umed A Ajani; Janet B Croft; Julia A Critchley; Darwin R Labarthe; Thomas E Kottke; Wayne H Giles; Simon Capewell Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-06-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephen Barrett; Stephen Begg; Paul O'Halloran; Owen Howlett; Jack Lawrence; Michael Kingsley Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 6.457