首页> 外文期刊>Circulation: An Official Journal of the American Heart Association >Efficacy of in-hospital multidimensional interventions of secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
【24h】

Efficacy of in-hospital multidimensional interventions of secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机译:急性冠状动脉综合征后二级预防的院内多维干预效果:系统评价和荟萃分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Secondary prevention programs for patients experiencing an acute coronary syndrome have been shown to be effective in the outpatient setting. The efficacy of in-hospital prevention interventions administered soon after acute cardiac events is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether in-hospital, patient-level interventions targeting multiple cardiovascular risk factors reduce all-cause mortality after an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a prespecified search strategy, we included controlled clinical trials and before-after studies of secondary prevention interventions with at least a patient-level component (ie, education, counseling, or patient-specific order sets) initiated in hospital with outcomes of mortality, readmission, or reinfarction rates in acute coronary syndrome patients. We classified the interventions as patient-level interventions with or without associated healthcare provider-level interventions and/or system-levelinterventions. Twenty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. The summary estimate of 14 studies revealed a relative risk of all-cause mortality of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.92; n=37,585) at 1 year. However, the apparent benefit depended on study design and level of intervention. The before-after studies suggested reduced mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.90; n=3680 deaths), whereas the RR was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.44; n=99 deaths) among the controlled clinical trials. Only interventions including a provider- or system-level intervention suggested reduced mortality compared with patient-level-only interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for in-hospital, patient-level interventions for secondary prevention is promising but not definitive because only before-after studies suggest a significant reduction in mortality. Future research should formally test which components of interventions provide the greatest benefit.
机译:背景:对于患有急性冠状动脉综合症的患者,二级预防计划已在门诊患者中有效。急性心脏事件发生后不久进行的院内预防干预措施的疗效尚不清楚。我们进行了系统的回顾和荟萃分析,以确定针对多种心血管危险因素的医院内,患者水平的干预措施是否可以降低急性冠脉综合征后的全因死亡率。方法和结果:采用预先确定的搜索策略,我们包括在医院就诊的二级预防干预措施的对照临床试验和前后研究,这些干预措施至少具有患者水平的组成部分(即教育,咨询或患者特定的命令集)。急性冠脉综合征患者的死亡率,再入院率或再梗塞率的预后。我们将干预分为具有或不具有相关医疗保健提供者级别的干预和/或系统级别的干预的患者级别的干预。二十六项研究符合我们的纳入标准。对14项研究的总结估计显示,一年时全因死亡率的相对风险为0.79(95%CI,0.69至0.92; n = 37,585)。但是,明显的益处取决于研究设计和干预水平。前后研究表明死亡率降低(相对风险[RR]为0.77; 95%CI为0.66至0.90; n = 3680死亡),而RR为0.96(95%CI为0.64至1.44; n = 99死亡)。在对照临床试验中。与仅采用患者级别的干预措施相比,只有包括提供者或系统级别的干预措施的干预措施可以降低死亡率。结论:院内,患者一级二级预防干预的证据是有希望的,但尚不确定,因为只有前后研究表明死亡率显着降低。未来的研究应正式测试哪些干预措施可带来最大的收益。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号