Choice of secondary prevention improves risk factors after acute coronary syndrome: 1-year follow-up of the CHOICE (Choice of Health Options In prevention of Cardiovascular Events) randomised controlled trial

Objective:To determine the effect of a new CHOICE (Choice of Health Options In prevention of Cardiovascular Events) programme on cardiovascular risk factors in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) survivors.Design:Single-blind randomised controlled trial.Setting:Tertiary referral hospital in Sydney Austral...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Heart (British Cardiac Society) 2009-03, Vol.95 (6), p.468-475
Hauptverfasser: Redfern, J, Briffa, T, Ellis, E, Freedman, S B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective:To determine the effect of a new CHOICE (Choice of Health Options In prevention of Cardiovascular Events) programme on cardiovascular risk factors in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) survivors.Design:Single-blind randomised controlled trial.Setting:Tertiary referral hospital in Sydney Australia.Patients:144 ACS survivors who were not accessing standard cardiac rehabilitation. Data were also collected on a further 64 ACS survivors attending standard cardiac rehabilitation.Intervention:The CHOICE group (n = 72) participated in a brief, patient-centred, modular programme comprising a clinic visit plus telephone support, encompassing mandatory cholesterol lowering and tailored preferential risk modification. The control group (n = 72) participated in continuing conventional care but no centrally coordinated secondary prevention.Main outcome measures:Values for total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, smoking status and physical activity.Results:CHOICE and control groups were well matched at baseline. At 12 months, the CHOICE group (n = 67) had significantly better risk factor levels than controls (n = 69) for total cholesterol (TC) (mean (SEM) 4.0 (0.1) vs 4.7 (0.1) mmol/l, p
ISSN:1355-6037
1468-201X
DOI:10.1136/hrt.2008.150870