Search

Objective of this study is to systematically explore and summarize the best evidence on intervention programs for patients with kinesophobia following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to provide a comprehensive reference for clinical practice interventions. Methods: Evidence on interventions for kinesophobia post-PCI was retrieved from Chinese and international integrated databases, treatment guidelines, and websites of professional associations, including systematic reviews and expert consensuses. The evidence considered in this study extends up to May 2022, encompassing information available since the inception of the databases. Two researchers independently evaluated the articles included in the review and extracted and summarized the available evidence. Results: By extracting and integrating data from the 14 articles included in this review, we identified six categories: pre-intervention assessment, psychological intervention, health education, rehabilitation training, social support, and quality control. A total of 21 pieces of evidence were summarized, including mental health assessment, physical fitness evaluation, timing and content of health education, development of personalized exercise prescriptions, and risk control. Conclusion: In clinical settings, using evidence-based practices requires developing feasible intervention programs based on comprehensive consideration of hospital resources, allocation of medical personnel, and consideration of patients' preferences to reduce the kinesophobia of patients post-PCI and improve their compliance with exercise rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronary angiography has a limited ability to predict the functional significance of intermediate coronary lesions. Hence, physiological assessment of coronary lesions, via fractional flow reserve (FFR) or instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), has been introduced to determine their functional significance. An accumulating body of evidence has consolidated the role of physiology-guided revascularization, particularly among patients with stable ischemic heart disease. The use of FFR or iFR to guide decision-making in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and intermediate coronary lesions received a class I recommendation from major societal guidelines. Nevertheless, the role of coronary physiology testing is less clear among certain patients' groups, including patients with serial coronary lesions, acute coronary syndromes, aortic stenosis, heart failure, as well as post-percutaneous coronary interventions. In this review, we aimed to discuss the utility and clinical evidence of coronary physiology (mainly FFR and iFR), with emphasis on those specific patient groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]