Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2015
Effect of a comprehensive ambulatory care model on outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndrome in Colombia.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aristizábal Dagnovar, Gallo Jaime, Valencia Ángela, Jaime Juan, Correa Mónica, Aristizábal Alberto, Montoya Marcela, Abad José
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a care program designed according to a comprehensive ambulatory care model (CACM) on the appearance of new cardiovascular/coronary events in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
METHODS: Participants in this quasi-experimental intervention study included acute coronary syndrome patients 30-70 years old. The intervention group (n = 165) received care under the CACM, guided by an interdisciplinary team. The CACM included transitional care, risk stratification by severity, physiological profiling (impedance cardiography), and a treatment plan in accordance with current guidelines. The control group (n = 277) received conventional, recommended care in an ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation program. During one year of follow-up, the use of emergency and hospital services related to new cardiovascular and coronary events was evaluated.
RESULTS: Differences in the numbers of cardiovascular events (P = 0.003) and coronary events (P = 0.006) experienced by patients were found between the control group and the intervention group. The instantaneous risk of a cardiovascular event (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-2.75; P = 0.007) and of a coronary event (HR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.13-2.90; P = 0.013), after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, and compromised coronary arteries, was higher in the control group than the intervention group.
CONCLUSIONS: Provision of care under the CACM to patients who had experienced an acute coronary event reduced emergency room visits and rehospitalizations related to new cardiovascular and coronary events by 40%. The average "number needed to treat" (NNT) under the CACM to have an impact on one person (in this case, the prevention of one cardiovascular or coronary event), was 9 and 11 respectively, indicating it is cost-effective.
METHODS: Participants in this quasi-experimental intervention study included acute coronary syndrome patients 30-70 years old. The intervention group (n = 165) received care under the CACM, guided by an interdisciplinary team. The CACM included transitional care, risk stratification by severity, physiological profiling (impedance cardiography), and a treatment plan in accordance with current guidelines. The control group (n = 277) received conventional, recommended care in an ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation program. During one year of follow-up, the use of emergency and hospital services related to new cardiovascular and coronary events was evaluated.
RESULTS: Differences in the numbers of cardiovascular events (P = 0.003) and coronary events (P = 0.006) experienced by patients were found between the control group and the intervention group. The instantaneous risk of a cardiovascular event (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-2.75; P = 0.007) and of a coronary event (HR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.13-2.90; P = 0.013), after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, and compromised coronary arteries, was higher in the control group than the intervention group.
CONCLUSIONS: Provision of care under the CACM to patients who had experienced an acute coronary event reduced emergency room visits and rehospitalizations related to new cardiovascular and coronary events by 40%. The average "number needed to treat" (NNT) under the CACM to have an impact on one person (in this case, the prevention of one cardiovascular or coronary event), was 9 and 11 respectively, indicating it is cost-effective.