William Dafoe

Determinants of physical activity after hospitalization for coronary artery disease: the Tracking Exercise After Cardiac Hospitalization (TEACH) Study

Background Little is known about physical activity levels in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who are not engaged in cardiac rehabilitation. We explored the trajectory of physical activity after hospitalization for CAD, and examined the effects of demographic, medical, and activity-related factors on the trajectory. Design A prospective cohort study. Methods A total of 782 patients were recruited during CAD-related hospitalization. Leisure-time activity energy expenditure (AEE) was measured 2, 6 and 12 months later. Sex, age, education, reason for hospitalization, congestive heart failure (CHF), diabetes, and physical activity before hospitalization were assessed at recruitment. Participation in cardiac rehabilitation was measured at follow-up. Results AEE was 1948 ± 1450, 1676 ± 1290, and 1637 ± 1486 kcal/week at 2, 6 and 12 months, respectively. There was a negative effect of time from 2 months post-hospitalization on physical activity (P<0.001). Interactions were found between age and time (P = 0.012) and education and time (P = 0.001). Main effects were noted for sex (men more active than women; P<0.001), CHF (those without CHF more active; P<0.01), diabetes (those without diabetes more active; P<0.05), and previous level of physical activity (those active before hospitalization more active after; P<0.001). Coronary artery bypass graft patients were more active than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients (P = 0.033). Conclusions Physical activity levels declined from 2 months after hospitalization. Specific subgroups (e.g. less educated, younger) were at greater risk of decline and other subgroups (e.g. women, and PCI, CHF, and diabetic patients) demonstrated lower physical activity. These groups need tailored interventions.

Economic evaluation of cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review.

Background Economic evaluation is an important tool in the evaluation of competing healthcare interventions. Little is known about the economic benefits of different cardiac rehabilitation program delivery models. Design The goal of this study was to review and evaluate the methodological quality of published economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation services. Methods Electronic databases were searched for English language evaluations (trials, modeling studies) of the economic impact of cardiac rehabilitation. A review of study characteristics and methodological quality was completed using standardized tools. All costs are adjusted to 2004 US dollars. Results Fifteen economic evaluations were identified which met eligibility criteria but which displayed wide variation in the use of comparators, evaluation type, perspective and design. Evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of supervised cardiac rehabilitation in myocardial infarction and heart failure patients was identified. The range of cost per life year gained was estimated as from

Stepped care approach to smoking cessation in patients hospitalized for coronary artery disease.

2193 to

Systematizing Inpatient Referral to Cardiac Rehabilitation 2010: CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF CARDIAC REHABILITATION AND CANADIAN CARDIOVASCULAR SOCIETY JOINT POSITION PAPER

28193 and from -

Perceptions of cardiac rehabilitation patients, specialists and rehabilitation programs regarding cardiac rehabilitation wait times

668 to

The lexicon of 'Cardiac Rehabilitation': is it time for an evolutionary new term?

16118 per quality adjusted life year gained. The level of evidence supporting the economic value of home-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions is limited to partial economic analyses. Conclusions Evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of supervised cardiac rehabilitation compared with usual care in myocardial infarction and heart failure was identified. Further trials are required to support the cost-effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation in cardiac patients who have under gone revascularization. The literature evaluating home-based and alternative delivery models of cardiac rehabilitation was insufficient to draw conclusions about their relative cost-effectiveness. The overall quality of published economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation is poor and further well-designed trials are required.

Effectiveness of secondary prevention programmes in CHD

PURPOSE Smoking cessation is an important goal for smokers with coronary artery disease (CAD) because it reduces cardiac morbidity and mortality. Effective interventions for cigarette smokers with CAD exist, but they often are considered to be intensive and expensive. Stepped-care interventions have been proposed as a promising way to allocate smoking cessation treatments in a cost-effective manner. Stepped care refers to the practice of initiating treatment with low-intensity intervention and then exposing treatment failures to successively more intense interventions. METHODS To address the efficacy of this approach, 254 cigarette smokers hospitalized with CAD were provided a brief cessation intervention. The participants then were assigned randomly to either a more intensive stepped-care treatment (counseling and nicotine patch therapy) or no additional treatment. Outcomes were point-prevalent abstinence measured 3 months and 1 year after hospital discharge. RESULTS Stepped-care treatment increased smoking cessation rates from 42% to 53% during a 3-month follow-up period (P =.05), but showed little effect at the 1-year follow-up assessment, as evidenced by a cessation rate for the minimal intervention group of 36% versus 39% for the stepped-care group (P =.36). CONCLUSIONS A stepped-care approach to smoking cessation increased short-but not long-term point-prevalent abstinence in patients with CAD. For improvement of long-term effectiveness, refinement of the timing and content of stepped-care interventions needs to occur.

Seeking ‘meta guidelines’ for lipids

Despite recommendations in clinical practice guidelines, evidence suggests cardiac rehabilitation (CR) referral and use following indicated cardiac events is low. Referral strategies such as systematic referral have been advocated to improve CR use. The objective of this policy position is to synthesize evidence and make recommendations on strategies to increase patient enrollment in CR. A systematic review of 6 databases from inception to January 2009 was conducted. Only primary, published, English-language studies were included. A meta-analysis was undertaken to synthesize the enrollment rates by referral strategy. In all, 14 studies met inclusion criteria. Referral strategies were categorized as systematic on the basis of use of systematic discharge order sets, as liaison on the basis of discussions with allied health care providers, or as other on the basis of patient letters. Overall, there were 7 positive studies, 5 without comparison groups, and 2 studies that reported null findings. The combined effect sizes of the meta-analysis were as follows: 73% (95% CI, 39%-92%) for the patient letters (“other”), 66% (95% CI, 54%-77%) for the combined systematic and liaison strategy, 45% (95% CI, 33%-57%) for the systematic strategy alone, and 44% (95% CI, 35%-53%) for the liaison strategy alone. In conclusion, the results suggest that innovative referral strategies increase CR use. Although patient letters look promising, evidence for this strategy is sparse and inconsistent at present. Therefore we suggest that inpatient units adopt systematic referral strategies, including a discussion at the bedside, for eligible patient groups in order to increase CR enrollment and participation. This approach should be considered best practice for further investigation.

Acculturation and evolving cardiovascular disease: An unhealthy dyad

BackgroundIn 2006, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) Access to Care Working Group recommended a 30-day wait time benchmark for cardiac rehabilitation (CR). The objectives of the current study were to: (1) describe cardiac patient perceptions of actual and ideal CR wait times, (2) describe and compare cardiac specialist and CR program perceptions of wait times, as well as whether the recommendations are appropriate and feasible, and (3) investigate actual wait times and factors that CR programs perceive to affect these wait times.MethodsPostal and online surveys to assess perceptions of CR wait times were administered to CR enrollees at intake into 1 of 8 programs, all CCS member cardiac specialists treating patients indicated for CR, and all CR programs listed in Canadian directories. Actual wait times were ascertained from the Canadian Cardiac Rehabilitation Registry. The design was cross-sectional. Responses were described and compared.ResultsResponses were received from 163 CR enrollees, 71 cardiac specialists (9.3% response rate), and 92 CR programs (61.7% response rate). Patients reported that their wait time from hospital discharge to CR initiation was 65.6 ± 88.4 days (median, 42 days), while their ideal median wait time was 28 days. Most patients (91.5%) considered their wait to be acceptable, but ideal wait times varied significantly by the type of cardiac indication for CR. There were significant differences between specialist and program perceptions of the appropriate number of days to wait by most indications, with CR programs perceiving shorter waits as appropriate (p < 0.05). CR programs reported that feasible wait times were significantly longer than what was appropriate for all indications (p < 0.05). They perceived that patient travel and staff capacity were the main factors negatively affecting waits. The median wait time from referral to program initiation was 64 days (mean, 80.0 ± 62.8 days), with no difference in wait by indication.ConclusionsWait times following access to cardiac rehabilitation are prolonged compared with consensus recommendations, and yet are generally acceptable to most patients. Wait times following percutaneous coronary intervention in particular may need to be shortened. Future research is required to provide an evidence base for wait time benchmarks.

Loneliness, marriage and cardiovascular health

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) contributes significantly toward the care of cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients, and is recognized by various health care organizations in their practice guidelines and position statements [1–3]. Even so, it is commonly perceived as less important compared with pharmacological or interventional therapy in mainstream cardiology, as is evident from its less-thanvigorous promotion in contrast to drug therapies such as antiplatelets, statins or b-blockers. The physicians’ belief in the benefits and effectiveness of CR directly influences their support and recommendations. Patients who are not fully aware of its nature and benefits are less likely to join and are less adherent. Diminished perceptions of the importance of CR may be partly responsible for its persistent under-utilization [4,5]. Recently, some have questioned whether the term ‘CR’ may be an impediment [6,7]. Is the name still as relevant today as it was decades ago when it was first created? Does the nomenclature ‘CR’ affect the way in which the program is perceived and promoted?