Coronary artery bypass grafting is the most frequently performed cardiac surgical procedure. Despite its benefits on survival and quality of life, it is associated with a considerable financial burden on society including sick leave. Our study aimed to explore the barriers that obstruct return to work after coronary artery bypass grafting. We performed a qualitative study with in-depth interviewing of patients 6 months after their surgery. We included ten working patients and interviewed them and their spouses at home. The interviews were transcribed and two investigators independently searched the transcriptions for barriers that had obstructed return to work. Based on the interviews we were able to distinguish four main groups of barriers: 'personal', 'healthcare', 'work' and 'law & regulation.' The personal barriers were subgrouped in affective, physical, cognitive, social and individually determined factors. Conclusion In a qualitative study we showed that personal barriers as well as barriers regarding healthcare, work and law & regulation, were perceived by patients as important factors obstructing return to work after coronary artery bypass grafting. To overcome the identified barriers, the process of return to work could preferably be initiated during the hospital phase, started during cardiac rehabilitation, and coordinated by a case-managing professional.
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
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
