Search

BACKGROUND: Cost-related medication nonadherence (CRMNA) refers to not taking medications as prescribed because of difficulties paying for them. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were (1) to assess the prevalence of CRMNA to immunosuppressants in heart transplant recipients internationally and (2) to determine multilevel correlates (patient, center, and healthcare system levels) of CRMNA. METHODS: Using data from the cross-sectional international BRIGHT study, applying multistaged sampling, CRMNA was assessed via 3 self-report items in 1365 patients from 36 heart transplant centers in 11 countries. Cost-related medication nonadherence was defined as any positive answer on any of the 3 items. Healthcare system-level (ie, insurance coverage, out-of-pocket expenditures) and patient-level (ie, intention, perceived financial burden, cost as a barrier, a health belief regarding medication benefits, cost-related self-efficacy, and demographic factors) CRMNA correlates were assessed. Correlates were examined using mixed logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Across all study countries, CRMNA had an average prevalence of 2.6% (range, 0% [Switzerland/Brazil] to 9.8% [Australia]) and was positively related to being single (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-4.47), perceived financial burden (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-2.99), and cost as a barrier (odds ratio, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-4.07). Four protective factors were identified: white ethnicity (odds ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.74), intention to adhere (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.63), self-efficacy (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.67), and belief about medication benefit (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.87). Regarding variability, 81.3% was explained at the patient level; 13.8%, at the center level; and 4.8%, at the country level. CONCLUSION: In heart transplant recipients, the CRMNA prevalence varies across countries but is lower than in other chronically ill populations. Identified patient-level correlates are novel (ie, intention to adhere, cost-related barriers, and cost-related self-efficacy) and indicate patient-perceived medication cost burden. ispartof: Journal Of Cardiovascular Nursing vol:35 issue:6 pages:519-529 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Traditional and transcatheter surgical treatments of severe aortic valve stenosis (SAVS) are increasing in parallel with the improved life expectancy. Recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported comparable or non-inferior mortality with transcatheter treatments compared with traditional surgery. However, RCTs have the limitation of being a mirror of the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, without reflecting the 'real clinical world'. Technological improvements have recently allowed the development of minimally invasive surgical accesses and the use of sutureless valves, but their impact on the clinical scenario is difficult to assess because of the monocentric design of published studies and limited sample size. A prospective multicentre registry including all patients referred for a surgical treatment of SAVS (traditional, through full sternotomy; minimally invasive; or transcatheter; with both 'sutured' and 'sutureless' valves) will provide a 'real-world' picture of available results of current surgical options and will help to clarify the 'grey zones' of current guidelines. Introduction Traditional and transcatheter surgical treatments of severe aortic valve stenosis (SAVS) are increasing in parallel with the improved life expectancy. Recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported comparable or non-inferior mortality with transcatheter treatments compared with traditional surgery. However, RCTs have the limitation of being a mirror of the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, without reflecting the 'real clinical world'. Technological improvements have recently allowed the development of minimally invasive surgical accesses and the use of sutureless valves, but their impact on the clinical scenario is difficult to assess because of the monocentric design of published studies and limited sample size. A prospective multicentre registry including all patients referred for a surgical treatment of SAVS (traditional, through full sternotomy; minimally invasive; or transcatheter; with both 'sutured' and 'sutureless' valves) will provide a 'real-world' picture of available results of current surgical options and will help to clarify the 'grey zones' of current guidelines.Methods and analysis European Aortic Valve Registry is a prospective observational open registry designed to collect all data from patients admitted for SAVS, with or without coronary artery disease, in 16 cardiac surgery centres located in six countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and UK). Patients will be enrolled over a 2-year period and followed up for a minimum of 5 years to a maximum of 10 years after enrolment. Outcome definitions are concordant with Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria and established guidelines. Primary outcome is 5-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes aim at establishing 'early' 30-day all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, as well as major morbidity, and 'late' cardiovascular mortality, major morbidity, structural and non-structural valve complications, quality of life and echocardiographic results.Ethics and dissemination The study protocol is approved by local ethics committees. Any formal presentation or publication of data will be considered as a joint publication by the participating physician(s) and will follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors for authorship.

Saphenous vein grafts are commonly used conduits for surgical revascularization of coronary arteries but are associated with poor long-term patency rates. Percutaneous revascularization of saphenous vein grafts is associated with worse clinical outcomes including higher rates of in-stent restenosis, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, and death compared with percutaneous coronary intervention of native coronary arteries. Use of embolic protection devices is a Class I indication according to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines to decrease the risk of distal embolization, no-reflow, and periprocedural myocardial infarction. Nonetheless, these devices are underused in clinical practice. Various pharmacological agents are available that may also reduce the risk of or mitigate the consequences of no-reflow. Covered stents do not decrease the rates of periprocedural myocardial infarction and restenosis. Most available evidence supports treatment with drug-eluting stents in this high-risk lesion subset to reduce angiographic and clinical restenosis, although large, randomized trials comparing drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents are needed. (J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2011;4:831-43) (C) 2011 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

MK-0431 Single Dose Glucose Lowering Study in Type 2 Diabetics