OBJECTIVE: Participation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality. However, most programs rely on self-report measures when assessing the critical risk factor of smoking. This study examined smoking status using self-report versus objective measurement using expired carbon monoxide (CO) and compared patient characteristics by CO level. METHOD: Patients were screened for smoking status when entering CR by self-report and by objectively measured CO. Measures of aerobic fitness, educational attainment, depressive symptoms, and self-reported physical function were also collected. The discrepancy between smoking status based on self-report and objective measurement was examined and patient characteristics by CO measurement were compared. RESULTS: Of the 853 patients screened, 62 self-reported current smoking and 112 had a CO of ≥ 4 ppm. Using a cut-off of ≥ 4 ppm encompassed almost all self-reported smokers (specificity: 98.5%) and identified 61 patients (not reporting current smoking) needing further screening. Further questioning yielded an additional 21 patients with combusted use (tobacco/cannabis), six nonsmoking patients with environmental CO exposure, and 34 where the reason for elevated CO was unknown. CO ≥ 4 ppm patients were younger (62.2 vs. 67.7, p < .01), had higher depression scores (5.6 vs. 3.7, Patient Health Questionairre-9, p < .01), had lower educational attainment (59.0% ≤ high school vs. 31.3%, p < .01), had lower levels of fitness (after controlling for clinical characteristics, p < .01), and completed fewer CR sessions (18 vs. 22, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of patients who are actively smoking may be misclassified by relying on patient report alone. CO monitoring provides a simple and objective method of systematically screening patients. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: Participation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality. However, most programs rely on self-report measures when assessing the critical risk factor of smoking. This study examined smoking status using self-report versus objective measurement using expired carbon monoxide (CO) and compared patient characteristics by CO level. METHOD: Patients were screened for smoking status when entering CR by self-report and by objectively measured CO. Measures of aerobic fitness, educational attainment, depressive symptoms, and self-reported physical function were also collected. The discrepancy between smoking status based on self-report and objective measurement was examined and patient characteristics by CO measurement were compared. RESULTS: Of the 853 patients screened, 62 self-reported current smoking and 112 had a CO of ≥ 4 ppm. Using a cut-off of ≥ 4 ppm encompassed almost all self-reported smokers (specificity: 98.5%) and identified 61 patients (not reporting current smoking) needing further screening. Further questioning yielded an additional 21 patients with combusted use (tobacco/cannabis), six nonsmoking patients with environmental CO exposure, and 34 where the reason for elevated CO was unknown. CO ≥ 4 ppm patients were younger (62.2 vs. 67.7, p < .01), had higher depression scores (5.6 vs. 3.7, Patient Health Questionairre-9, p < .01), had lower educational attainment (59.0% ≤ high school vs. 31.3%, p < .01), had lower levels of fitness (after controlling for clinical characteristics, p < .01), and completed fewer CR sessions (18 vs. 22, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of patients who are actively smoking may be misclassified by relying on patient report alone. CO monitoring provides a simple and objective method of systematically screening patients. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Paul Muntner; Alvaro Alonso; Marcio S Bittencourt; Clifton W Callaway; April P Carson; Alanna M Chamberlain; Alexander R Chang; Susan Cheng; Sandeep R Das; Francesca N Delling; Luc Djousse; Mitchell S V Elkind; Jane F Ferguson; Myriam Fornage; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Sadiya S Khan; Brett M Kissela; Kristen L Knutson; Tak W Kwan; Daniel T Lackland; Tené T Lewis; Judith H Lichtman; Chris T Longenecker; Matthew Shane Loop; Pamela L Lutsey; Seth S Martin; Kunihiro Matsushita; Andrew E Moran; Michael E Mussolino; Martin O'Flaherty; Ambarish Pandey; Amanda M Perak; Wayne D Rosamond; Gregory A Roth; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Gary M Satou; Emily B Schroeder; Svati H Shah; Nicole L Spartano; Andrew Stokes; David L Tirschwell; Connie W Tsao; Mintu P Turakhia; Lisa B VanWagner; John T Wilkins; Sally S Wong; Salim S Virani Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Devin K Patel; Meredith S Duncan; Ashish S Shah; Brian R Lindman; Robert A Greevy; Patrick D Savage; Mary A Whooley; Michael E Matheny; Matthew S Freiberg; Justin M Bachmann Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Damon L Swift; Carl J Lavie; Neil M Johannsen; Ross Arena; Conrad P Earnest; James H O'Keefe; Richard V Milani; Steven N Blair; Timothy S Church Journal: Circ J Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 2.993
Authors: Diann E Gaalema; Irene Pericot-Valverde; Janice Y Bunn; Andrea C Villanti; Antonio Cepeda-Benito; Nathan J Doogan; Diana R Keith; Allison N Kurti; Alexa A Lopez; Tyler Nighbor; Maria A Parker; Amanda J Quisenberry; Ryan Redner; Megan E Roberts; Cassandra A Stanton; Philip A Ades; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Andrea Gurmankin Levy; Aaron M Scherer; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Knoll Larkin; Geoffrey D Barnes; Angela Fagerlin Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-11-02