Objective: To study the effects of a comprehensive secondary prevention programme on weight loss and to identify determinants of weight change in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: We performed a secondary analysis focusing on the subgroup of overweight CAD patients (BMI ≥27 kg/m2) in the Randomised Evaluation of Secondary Prevention by Outpatient Nurse SpEcialists-2 (RESPONSE-2) multicentre randomised trial. We evaluated weight change from baseline to 12-month follow-up; multivariable logistic regression with backward elimination was used to identify determinants of weight change. Results: Intervention patients (n=280) lost significantly more weight than control patients (n=257) (-2.4±7.1 kg vs -0.2±4.6 kg; p<0.001). Individual weight change varied widely, with weight gain (≥1.0 kg) occurring in 36% of interventions versus 41% controls (p=0.21). In the intervention group, weight loss of ≥5% was associated with higher age (OR 2.94), lower educational level (OR 1.91), non-smoking status (OR 2.92), motivation to start with weight loss directly after the baseline visit (OR 2.31) and weight loss programme participation (OR 3.33), whereas weight gain (≥1 kg) was associated with smoking cessation ≤6 months before or during hospitalisation (OR 3.21), non-Caucasian ethnicity (OR 2.77), smoking at baseline (OR 2.70), lower age (<65 years) (OR 1.47) and weight loss programme participation (OR 0.59). Conclusion: The comprehensive secondary prevention programme was, on average, effective in achieving weight loss. However, wide variation was observed. As weight gain was observed in over one in three participants in both groups, prevention of weight gain may be as important as attempts to lose weight.
LINK
Background: Marital status is associated with prognosis in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the influence of partners on successful modification of lifestyle-related risk factors (LRFs) in secondary CVD prevention is unclear. Therefore, we studied the association between the presence of a partner, partner participation in lifestyle interventions and LRF modification in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: In a secondary analysis of the RESPONSE-2 trial (n = 711), which compared nurse-coordinated referral to community-based lifestyle programs (smoking cessation, weight reduction and/or physical activity) to usual care in patients with CAD, we investigated the association between the presence of a partner and the level of partner participation on improvement in >1 LRF (urinary cotinine <200 ng/l, ≥5% weight reduction, ≥10% increased 6-min walking distance) without deterioration in other LRFs at 12 months follow-up. Results: The proportion of patients with a partner was 80% (571/711); 19% women (108/571). In the intervention group, 48% (141/293) had a participating partner in ≥1 lifestyle program. Overall, the presence of a partner was associated with patients' successful LRF modification (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40-2.51). A participating partner was associated with successful weight reduction (aRR 1.73, 95% CI 1.15-2.35). Conclusion: The presence of a partner is associated with LRF improvement in patients with CAD. Moreover, patients with partners participating in lifestyle programs are more successful in reducing weight. Involving partners of CAD patients in weight reduction interventions should be considered in routine practice.
DOCUMENT
Background: For patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), smoking is an important risk factor for the recurrence of a cardiovascular event. Motivational interviewing (MI) may increase the motivation of the smokers to stop smoking. Data on MI for smoking cessation in patients with CAD are limited, and the active ingredients and working mechanisms of MI in smoking cessation are largely unknown. Therefore, this study was designed to explore active ingredients and working mechanisms of MI for smoking cessation in smokers with CAD, shortly after a cardiovascular event. Methods: We conducted a qualitative multiple case study of 24 patients with CAD who participated in a randomized trial on lifestyle change. One hundred and nine audio-recorded MI sessions were coded with a combination of the sequential code for observing process exchanges (SCOPE) and the motivational interviewing skill code (MISC). The analysis of the cases consisted of three phases: single case analysis, cross-case analysis, and cross-case synthesis. In a quantitative sequential analysis, we calculated the transition probabilities between the use of MI techniques by the coaches and the subsequent patient statements concerning smoking cessation. Results: In 12 cases, we observed ingredients that appeared to activate the mechanisms of change. Active ingredients were compositions of behaviors of the coaches (e.g., supporting self-efficacy and supporting autonomy) and patient reactions (e.g., in-depth self-exploration and change talk), interacting over large parts of an MI session. The composition of active ingredients differed among cases, as the patient process and the MI-coaching strategy differed. Particularly, change talk and self-efficacy appeared to stimulate the mechanisms of change “arguing oneself into change” and “increasing self-efficacy/confidence.”
DOCUMENT
Patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) are more sedentary compared with the general population, but contemporary cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes do not specifically target sedentary behaviour (SB). We developed a 12-week, hybrid (centre-based+home-based) Sedentary behaviour IntervenTion as a personaLisEd Secondary prevention Strategy (SIT LESS). The SIT LESS programme is tailored to the needs of patients with CAD, using evidence-based behavioural change methods and an activity tracker connected to an online dashboard to enable self-monitoring and remote coaching. Following the intervention mapping principles, we first identified determinants of SB from literature to adapt theory-based methods and practical applications to target SB and then evaluated the intervention in advisory board meetings with patients and nurse specialists. This resulted in four core components of SIT LESS: (1) patient education, (2) goal setting, (3) motivational interviewing with coping planning, and (4) (tele)monitoring using a pocket-worn activity tracker connected to a smartphone application and providing vibrotactile feedback after prolonged sedentary bouts. We hypothesise that adding SIT LESS to contemporary CR will reduce SB in patients with CAD to a greater extent compared with usual care. Therefore, 212 patients with CAD will be recruited from two Dutch hospitals and randomised to CR (control) or CR+SIT LESS (intervention). Patients will be assessed prior to, immediately after and 3 months after CR. The primary comparison relates to the pre-CR versus post-CR difference in SB (objectively assessed in min/day) between the control and intervention groups. Secondary outcomes include between-group differences in SB characteristics (eg, number of sedentary bouts); change in SB 3 months after CR; changes in light-intensity and moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity; quality of life; and patients’ competencies for self-management. Outcomes of the SIT LESS randomised clinical trial will provide novel insight into the effectiveness of a structured, hybrid and personalised behaviour change intervention to attenuate SB in patients with CAD participating in CR.
MULTIFILE
OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of a comprehensive secondary prevention programme on weight loss and to identify determinants of weight change in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis focusing on the subgroup of overweight CAD patients (BMI ≥27 kg/m2) in the Randomised Evaluation of Secondary Prevention by Outpatient Nurse SpEcialists-2 (RESPONSE-2) multicentre randomised trial. We evaluated weight change from baseline to 12-month follow-up; multivariable logistic regression with backward elimination was used to identify determinants of weight change.RESULTS: Intervention patients (n=280) lost significantly more weight than control patients (n=257) (-2.4±7.1 kg vs -0.2±4.6 kg; p<0.001). Individual weight change varied widely, with weight gain (≥1.0 kg) occurring in 36% of interventions versus 41% controls (p=0.21). In the intervention group, weight loss of ≥5% was associated with higher age (OR 2.94), lower educational level (OR 1.91), non-smoking status (OR 2.92), motivation to start with weight loss directly after the baseline visit (OR 2.31) and weight loss programme participation (OR 3.33), whereas weight gain (≥1 kg) was associated with smoking cessation ≤6 months before or during hospitalisation (OR 3.21), non-Caucasian ethnicity (OR 2.77), smoking at baseline (OR 2.70), lower age (<65 years) (OR 1.47) and weight loss programme participation (OR 0.59).CONCLUSION: The comprehensive secondary prevention programme was, on average, effective in achieving weight loss. However, wide variation was observed. As weight gain was observed in over one in three participants in both groups, prevention of weight gain may be as important as attempts to lose weight.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3937.
DOCUMENT
Background: If nurses have the communication skills and the time, they can play an important role in increasing the intrinsic motivation of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) to change their lifestyle. Motivational Interviewing (Mo-Int) can be used to further support this role. However, few nurses are sufficiently proficient in applying Mo-Int skills. Increasing these complex communication skills may contribute significantly to achieve lifestyle changes in CAD patients. Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the coaching of nurses to skilfully use Mo-Int in a secondary prevention programme for CAD patients.Methods: The design was a before–after study of a learning strategy as a follow-up on a short Mo-Int workshop. At (on average) four-monthly intervals, the nurses received, three times, feedback and coaching by telephone and email on their use of Mo-Int skills in audio-recorded conversations on lifestyle change with CAD patients. The Mo-Int consistency of the nurses’ communication skills was scored using the Motivational Interviewing Target Scheme 2.1 (range 0–32). Results: Of the 24 nurses, 13 completed all audio recordings. The mean change in Mo-Int consistency of these completers between the first and the last audio recording was 6.4 (95% confidence interval 3.2 to 9.5). This change indicates an improvement from ‘a small part of Motivational Interviewing practice’ to ‘a mainly sufficient degree of Motivational Interviewing practice’.Conclusion: A one-year follow-up on a Mo-Int workshop with feedback and coaching improves Mo-Int skills of nurses. Healthcare professionals should be aware of the importance of a follow-up on training in complex communication skills, to develop and preserve competency.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To compare the treatment effect on lifestyle-related risk factors (LRFs) in older (≥65 years) versus younger (<65 years) patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) in The Randomised Evaluation of Secondary Prevention by Outpatient Nurse SpEcialists 2 (RESPONSE-2) trial. Methods: The RESPONSE-2 trial was a community-based lifestyle intervention trial (n=824) comparing nurse-coordinated referral with a comprehensive set of three lifestyle interventions (physical activity, weight reduction and/or smoking cessation) to usual care. In the current analysis, our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with improvement at 12 months follow-up (n=711) in ≥1 LRF stratified by age. Results: At baseline, older patients (n=245, mean age 69.2±3.9 years) had more adverse cardiovascular risk profiles and comorbidities than younger patients (n=579, mean age 53.7±6.6 years). There was no significant variation on the treatment effect according to age (p value treatment by age=0.45, OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.31). However, older patients were more likely to achieve ≥5% weight loss (OR old 5.58, 95% CI 2.77 to 11.26 vs OR young 1.57, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.49, p=0.003) and younger patients were more likely to show non-improved LRFs (OR old 0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67 vs OR young 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.26, p=0.01). Conclusion: Despite more adverse cardiovascular risk profiles and comorbidities among older patients, nurse-coordinated referral to a community-based lifestyle intervention was at least as successful in improving LRFs in older as in younger patients. Higher age alone should not be a reason to withhold lifestyle interventions in patients with CAD.
DOCUMENT
Background A high sedentary time is associated with increased mortality risk. Previous studies indicate that replacement of sedentary time with light- and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity attenuates the risk for adverse outcomes and improves cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with cardiovascular disease are more sedentary compared to the general population, while daily time spent sedentary remains high following contemporary cardiac rehabilitation programmes. This clinical trial investigated the effectiveness of a sedentary behaviour intervention as a personalised secondary prevention strategy (SIT LESS) on changes in sedentary time among patients with coronary artery disease participating in cardiac rehabilitation. Methods Patients were randomised to usual care (n = 104) or SIT LESS (n = 108). Both groups received a comprehensive 12-week centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programme with face-to-face consultations and supervised exercise sessions, whereas SIT LESS participants additionally received a 12-week, nurse-delivered, hybrid behaviour change intervention in combination with a pocket-worn activity tracker connected to a smartphone application to continuously monitor sedentary time. Primary outcome was the change in device-based sedentary time between pre- to post-rehabilitation. Changes in sedentary time characteristics (prevalence of prolonged sedentary bouts and proportion of patients with sedentary time ≥ 9.5 h/day); time spent in light-intensity and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; step count; quality of life; competencies for self-management; and cardiovascular risk score were assessed as secondary outcomes. Results Patients (77% male) were 63 ± 10 years and primarily diagnosed with myocardial infarction (78%). Sedentary time decreased in SIT LESS (− 1.6 [− 2.1 to − 1.1] hours/day) and controls (− 1.2 [ ─1.7 to − 0.8]), but between group differences did not reach statistical significance (─0.4 [─1.0 to 0.3]) hours/day). The post-rehabilitation proportion of patients with a sedentary time above the upper limit of normal (≥ 9.5 h/day) was significantly lower in SIT LESS versus controls (48% versus 72%, baseline-adjusted odds-ratio 0.4 (0.2–0.8)). No differences were observed in the other predefined secondary outcomes. Conclusions Among patients with coronary artery disease participating in cardiac rehabilitation, SIT LESS did not induce significantly greater reductions in sedentary time compared to controls, but delivery was feasible and a reduced odds of a sedentary time ≥ 9.5 h/day was observed.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), improvement of lifestyle-related risk factors (LRFs) reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, modification of LRFs is highly challenging.OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the impact of combining community-based lifestyle programs with regular hospital-based secondary prevention.METHODS: The authors performed a randomized controlled trial of nurse-coordinated referral of patients and their partners to 3 widely available community-based lifestyle programs, in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients admitted for acute coronary syndrome and/or revascularization, with ≥1 LRF (body mass index >27 kg/m(2), self-reported physical inactivity, and/or smoking) were included. All patients received guideline-based usual care. The intervention was based on 3 lifestyle programs for weight reduction, increasing physical activity, and smoking cessation. The primary outcome was the proportion of success at 12 months, defined as improvement in ≥1 qualifying LRF using weight (≥5% reduction), 6-min-walking distance (≥10% improvement), and urinary cotinine (200 ng/ml detection limit) without deterioration in the other 2.RESULTS: The authors randomized 824 patients. Complete data on the primary outcome were available in 711 patients. The proportion of successful patients in the intervention group was 37% (133 of 360) compared with 26% (91 of 351) in the control group (p = 0.002; risk ratio: 1.43; 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 1.78). In the intervention group, partner participation was associated with a significantly greater success rate (46% vs. 34%; p = 0.03).CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with coronary artery disease, nurse-coordinated referral to a comprehensive set of community-based, widely available lifestyle interventions, with optional partner participation, leads to significant improvements in LRFs. (RESPONSE-2: Randomised Evaluation of Secondary Prevention by Outpatient Nurse SpEcialists 2; NTR3937).
DOCUMENT
Background: Marital status is associated with prognosis in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).However, the influence of partners on successful modification of lifestyle-related risk factors (LRFs) in secondaryCVD prevention is unclear. Therefore, we studied the association between the presence of a partner,partner participation in lifestyle interventions and LRF modification in patients with coronary arterydisease (CAD).Methods: In a secondary analysis of the RESPONSE-2 trial (n=711),which compared nurse-coordinated referralto community-based lifestyle programs (smoking cessation, weight reduction and/or physical activity) to usualcare in patients with CAD, we investigated the association between the presence of a partner and the level ofpartner participation on improvement in >1 LRF (urinary cotinine <200 ng/l, ≥5% weight reduction, ≥10% increased6-min walking distance) without deterioration in other LRFs at 12 months follow-up.Results: The proportion of patients with a partner was 80% (571/711); 19% women (108/571). In the interventiongroup, 48% (141/293) had a participating partner in ≥1 lifestyle program. Overall, the presence of apartner was associated with patients' successful LRF modification (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.93, 95% confidenceinterval (CI) 1.40–2.51). A participating partner was associated with successful weight reduction(aRR 1.73, 95% CI 1.15–2.35).Conclusion: The presence of a partner is associated with LRF improvement in patients with CAD. Moreover, patientswithpartners participating in lifestyle programs aremore successful in reducingweight. Involving partnersof CAD patients in weight reduction interventions should be considered in routine practice.
DOCUMENT
