Search

Background: The relative importance of lifestyle, medical and psychosocial factors on the risk of recurrent major cardiovascular (CV) events (MACE) in coronary patients' needs to be identified. The main objective of this study is to estimate the association between potentially preventable factors on MACE in an outpatient coronary population from routine clinical practice., Methods: This prospective follow-up study of recurrent MACE, determine the predictive impact of risk factors and a wide range of relevant co-factors recorded at baseline. The baseline study included 1127 consecutive patients 2-36 months after myocardial infarction (MI) and/or revascularization procedure. The primary composite endpoint of recurrent MACE defined as CV death, hospitalization due to MI, revascularization, stroke/transitory ischemic attacks or heart failure was obtained from hospital records. Data were analysed using cox proportional hazard regression, stratified by prior coronary events before the index event., Results: During a mean follow-up of 4.2 years from study inclusion (mean time from index event to end of study 5.7 years), 364 MACE occurred in 240 patients (21, 95% confidence interval: 19 to 24%), of which 39 were CV deaths. In multi-adjusted analyses, the strongest predictor of MACE was not taking statins (Relative risk [RR] 2.13), succeeded by physical inactivity (RR 1.73), peripheral artery disease (RR 1.73), chronic kidney failure (RR 1.52), former smoking (RR 1.46) and higher Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression subscale score (RR 1.04 per unit increase). Preventable and potentially modifiable factors addressed accounted for 66% (95% confidence interval: 49 to 77%) of the risk for recurrent events. The major contributions were smoking, low physical activity, not taking statins, not participating in cardiac rehabilitation and diabetes., Conclusions: Coronary patients were at high risk of recurrent MACE. Potentially preventable clinical and psychosocial factors predicted two out of three MACE, which is why these factors should be targeted in coronary populations., Trial Registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02309255. Registered at December 5th, 2014, registered retrospectively.

Purpose: The reasons why many coronary patients are inactive or have a low level of physical activity (PA) are not completely understood. We identified medical and psychosocial factors associated with PA status and increasing exercise level after a coronary event., Methods: A cross-sectional study investigated the factors associated with PA in 1101 patients hospitalized with myocardial infarction (MI) and/or a revascularization procedure. Data were collected from hospital records, a self-report questionnaire, and a clinical examination. PA was categorized as inactivity, low activity, and adequate activity (≥ moderate intensity of 30 min ≥2-3 times/wk), an overall summary PA-index was measured as a continuous variable, and self-reported PA increase since the index event was measured on a 0- to 10-point Likert Scale., Results: In all, 18% reported inactivity, 42% low, and 40% adequate activity at follow-up after median 16 mo. In multiadjusted linear regression analyses, low PA-index was significantly associated with smoking, obesity, unhealthy diet, depression, female, low education, MI as index diagnosis, and ≥1 previous coronary event. Motivation, risk and illness perceptions, and low reported need of help to increase PA were significantly associated with self-reported increasing PA level in adjusted continuous analyses., Conclusions: Daily smoking, obesity, unhealthy diet, and depression were the major potentially modifiable factors associated with insufficient PA, whereas high motivation and risk and illness perceptions were associated with increasing PA level. Further research on the effect of interventions tailored to the reported significant factors of failure is needed to improve PA level in CHD patients.

Background: Current guidelines on the use of β-blockers in post-acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients without reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are based on studies before the implementation of modern reperfusion and secondary prevention therapies. It remains unknown whether β-blockers will reduce mortality and recurrent MI in contemporary revascularized post-MI patients without reduced LVEF., Design: BETAMI is a prospective, randomized, open, blinded end point multicenter study in 10,000 MI patients designed to test the superiority of oral β-blocker therapy compared to no β-blocker therapy. Patients with LVEF ≥40% following treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis and/or no clinical signs of heart failure are eligible to participate. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause mortality or recurrent MI obtained from national registries over a mean follow-up period of 3 years. Safety end points include rates of nonfatal MI, all-cause mortality, ventricular arrhythmias, and hospitalizations for heart failure obtained from hospital medical records 30 days after randomization, and from national registries after 6 and 18 months. Key secondary end points include recurrent MI, heart failure, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and clinical outcomes linked to β-blocker therapy including drug adherence, adverse effects, cardiovascular risk factors, psychosocial factors, and health economy. Statistical analyses will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. A prespecified per-protocol analysis (patients truly on β-blockers or not) will also be conducted., Conclusions: The results from the BETAMI trial may have the potential of changing current clinical practice for treatment with β-blockers following MI in patients without reduced LVEF. EudraCT number 2018-000590-75., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Understanding the determinants associated with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in coronary patients may help to individualize treatment and modelling interventions. We sought to identify sociodemographic, medical and psychosocial factors associated with normal blood glucose (HbA1c < 5.7%), prediabetes (HbA1c 5.7-6.4%), and type 2 diabetes., Methods: A cross-sectional explorative study applied regression analyses to investigate the factors associated with glycaemic status and control (HbA 1c level) in 1083 patients with myocardial infarction and/or a coronary revascularization procedure. Data were collected from hospital records at the index event and from a self-report questionnaire and clinical examination with blood samples at 2-36 months follow-up., Results: In all, 23% had type 2 diabetes, 44% had prediabetes, and 33% had normal blood glucose at follow-up. In adjusted analyses, type 2 diabetes was associated with larger waist circumference (Odds Ratio 1.03 per 1.0 cm, p = 0.001), hypertension (Odds Ratio 2.7, p < 0.001), lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (Odds Ratio 0.3 per1.0 mmol/L, p = 0.002) and insomnia (Odds Ratio 2.0, p = 0.002). In adjusted analyses, prediabetes was associated with smoking (Odds Ratio 3.3, p = 0.001), hypertension (Odds Ratio 1.5, p = 0.03), and non-participation in cardiac rehabilitation (Odds Ratio 1.7, p = 0.003). In patients with type 2 diabetes, a higher HbA 1c level was associated with ethnic minority background (standardized beta [β] 0.19, p = 0.005) and low drug adherence (β 0.17, p = 0.01). In patients with prediabetes or normal blood glucose, a higher HbA 1c was associated with larger waist circumference (β 0.13, p < 0.001), smoking (β 0.18, p < 0.001), hypertension (β 0.08, p = 0.04), older age (β 0.16, p < 0.001), and non-participation in cardiac rehabilitation (β 0.11, p = 0.005)., Conclusions: Along with obesity and hypertension, insomnia and low drug adherence were the major modifiable factors associated with type 2 diabetes, whereas smoking and non-participation in cardiac rehabilitation were the factors associated with prediabetes. Further research on the effect of individual tailoring, addressing the reported significant predictors of failure, is needed to improve glycaemic control., Trial Registration: Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02309255 , December 5th 2014.

Objective An interleukin-beta antagonist reduces the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events in coronary patients with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) ≥2 mg/L. It remains to be defined how large the coronary population at inflammatory risk is, and what the predictors of elevated risk are. Methods A cross-sectional study investigated the proportion of patients with elevated hs-CRP (i.e. ≥2 mg/L) and the respective demographic and clinical predictors in 971 patients without concomitant inflammatory diseases who had been hospitalized with myocardial infarction (80%) and/or a revascularization procedure. Data were collected from hospital records, a self-report questionnaire and a clinical examination with blood samples. Results After 2-36 month follow-up, 39% ( n = 378) had hs-CRP ≥ 2 mg/L, among whom 64% ( n = 243) had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥1.8 mmol/L and 47% ( n = 176) used a low-intensity statin regime. Only 24% had both LDL and hs-CRP at target range, 27% had elevation of both, whereas 12% had hs-CRP ≥ 2 mg/L and LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L. Somatic comorbidity (odds ratio (OR) 1.3/1.0 point on the Charlson score), ≥1 previous coronary event (OR 2.4), smoking (OR 2.2), higher body mass index (OR 1.2/1.0 kg/m 2 ), high LDL-C (OR 1.4/1.0 mmol/L) and higher anxiety scores (OR 1.1/1.0 point increase on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety subscale score) were significantly associated with hs-CRP ≥2 mg/L in adjusted analyses. Conclusions Elevated hs-CRP was frequently observed after a coronary event and associated with unfavourable LDL-C and unhealthy lifestyles and psychosocial distress. Intensified statin therapy and strategies to target these modifiable factors are the encouraged first steps to reduce inflammation and improve LDL-C in these patients.

We identified sociodemographic, medical, and psychosocial factors associated with unfavorable blood pressure (BP) control in 1012 patients, hospitalized with myocardial infarction and/or a coronary revascularization procedure. This cross-sectional study collected data from hospital records, a comprehensive self-report questionnaire, clinical examination, and blood samples after 2-36 (mean 17) months follow-up. Forty-six percent had unfavorable BP control (≥140/90 [80 in diabetics] mm Hg) at follow-up. Low socioeconomic status and psychosocial factors did not predict unfavorable BP control. Patients with unfavorable BP used on average 1.9 (standard deviation 1.1) BP-lowering drugs at hospital discharge, and the proportion of patients treated with angiotensin inhibitors and beta-blockers decreased significantly (P < .001) from discharge to follow-up. Diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 2.4), higher body mass index (OR 1.05 per 1.0 kg/m 2 ), and older age (OR 1.04 per year) were significantly associated with unfavorable BP control in adjusted analyses. Only age (standardized beta [β] 0.24) and body mass index (β 0.07) were associated with systolic BP in linear analyses. We conclude that BP control was insufficient after coronary events and associated with obesity and diabetes. Prescription of BP-lowering drugs in hypertensive patients seems suboptimal. Overweight and intensified drug treatment thus emerge as the major factors to target to improve BP control., (Copyright © 2017 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Coronary risk factor control in Europe is suboptimal and there are large variations in the nature of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes offered to coronary heart disease patients. We aim to explore characteristics and risk factor control in patients recruited from two neighbouring hospitals offering CR with different content. Methods In a cross-sectional study, 1127 Norwegian patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction and/or a revascularization procedure attended a clinical visit and completed a questionnaire at 2-36 months' follow-up. The hospital of Vestfold provides comprehensive CR, while the hospital of Drammen provides mainly exercise-based CR. Results At follow-up, patients in Vestfold performed more physical activity ( p = 0.02), were less obese ( p = 0.02) and reported better medication adherence ( p = 0.02) than patients in Drammen. The perceived need for information and follow-up was higher in Drammen than Vestfold ( p < 0.001). The CR participation rate in Vestfold was 75% compared with 18% in Drammen. CR participation in Vestfold was associated with higher prevalence of smoking cessation ( p = 0.001), lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( p = 0.01) and better medication adherence ( p = 0.02) compared with non-CR, in adjusted analyses. No differences in diet, body weight, or blood pressure control were found between CR and non-CR. Conclusions Vestfold, with comprehensive CR, had a higher participation rate and more risk factors on target than Drammen. Participation in CR in Vestfold was associated with higher levels of smoking cessation and medication adherence, and lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, but overall risk factor control is still deficient, underlining the need for improved understanding of barriers to optimal risk factor control.

Objective Understanding the determinants of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control constitutes the basis of modelling interventions for optimal lipid control and prognosis. We aim to identify medical and psychosocial (study) factors associated with unfavourable LDL-C control in coronary patients. Methods A cross-sectional explorative study used logistic and linear regression analysis to investigate the association between study factors and LDL-C in 1095 patients, hospitalized with myocardial infarction and/or a coronary revascularization procedure. Data were collected from hospital records, a comprehensive self-report questionnaire, clinical examination and blood samples after 2-36 months follow-up. Results Fifty-seven per cent did not reach the LDL-C target of 1.8 mmol/l at follow-up. Low socioeconomic status and psychosocial factors were not associated with failure to reach the LDL-C target. Statin specific side-effects (odds ratio 3.23), low statin adherence (odds ratio 3.07), coronary artery by-pass graft operation as index treatment (odds ratio 1.95), ≥ 1 coronary event prior to the index event (odds ratio 1.81), female gender (odds ratio 1.80), moderate- or low-intensity statin therapy (odds ratio 1.62) and eating fish < 3 times/week (odds ratio 1.56) were statistically significantly associated with failure to reach the LDL-C target, in adjusted analyses. Only side-effects (standardized β 0.180), low statin adherence ( β 0.209) and moderate- or low-intensity statin therapy ( β 0.228) were associated with LDL-C in continuous analyses. Conclusions Statin specific side-effects, low statin adherence and moderate- or low-intensity statin therapy were the major factors associated with unfavourable LDL-C control. Interventions to improve LDL-C should ensure adherence and prescription of sufficiently potent statins, and address side-effects appropriately.

Background: Risk factor control after a coronary event in a recent European multi-centre study was inadequate. Patient selection from academic centres and low participation rate, however, may underscore failing risk factor control in routine clinical practice. Improved understanding of the patient factors that influence risk factor control is needed to improve secondary preventive strategies. The objective of the present paper was to determine control of the major risk factors in a coronary population from routine clinical practice, and how risk factor control was influenced by the study factors age, gender, number of coronary events, and time since the index event., Methods: A cross-sectional study determined risk factor control and its association with study factors in 1127 patients (83% participated) aged 18-80 years with acute myocardial infarction and/or revascularization identified from medical records. Study data were collected from a self-report questionnaire, clinical examination, and blood samples after 2-36 months (median 16) follow-up., Results: Twenty-one percent were current smokers at follow-up. Of those smoking at the index event 56% continued smoking. Obesity was found in 34%, and 60% were physically inactive. Although 93% were taking blood-pressure lowering agents and statins, 46% were still hypertensive and 57% had LDL cholesterol >1.8 mmol/L at follow-up. Suboptimal control of diabetes was found in 59%. The patients failed on average to control three of the six major risk factors, and patients with >1 coronary events (p < 0.001) showed the poorest overall control. A linear increase in smoking (p < 0.01) and obesity (p < 0.05) with increasing time since the event was observed., Conclusions: The majority of coronary patients in a representative Norwegian population did not achieve risk factor control, and the poorest overall control was found in patients with several coronary events. New strategies for secondary prevention are clearly needed to improve risk factor control. Even modest advances will provide major health benefits., Trial Registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT02309255 ).

Objectives: We aim to compare patient characteristics and coronary risk factors among participants and non-participants in a survey of CHD patients., Methods: A cross-sectional study explored characteristics and risk factors in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and/or revascularization. Study data collected from hospital medical records were compared between participants (n = 1127, 83%) and non-participants (n = 229, 16%), who did not consent to participation in the clinical study., Results: Non-participants showed statistically higher prevalence of women (28% versus 21%), ethnic minorities (6% versus 3%), patients living alone (26% versus 19%), depression (19% versus 6%), anxiety (9% versus 3%), hypertension (54% versus 43%) and diabetes (24% versus 17%). Significantly higher multi-adjusted odds ratios were found for Charlson comorbidity index 3.4 (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.8, 4.3) and depression 14.5 (4.4, 121.5) in non-participants., Conclusions: Non-participants do have higher prevalence of important coronary risk factors compared to participants, and risk factor control may thus be overestimated in available prevention studies. Patients with somatic comorbidity and depression appear to be at particular risk of non-participation in the present study. New strategies accounting for the causes of nonadherence are important to improve secondary prevention in CHD.