Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
J Clin Med ; 11(7)2022 Mar 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1785765

RESUMEN

AIMS: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effects of individually prescribed hybrid comprehensive telerehabilitation (HCTR) implemented at patients' homes on left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in heart failure (HF) patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Telerehabilitation in Heart Failure Patients trial (TELEREH-HF) is a multicenter, prospective, randomized (1:1), open-label, parallel-group, controlled trial involving HF patients assigned either to HCTR involving a remotely monitored home training program in conjunction with usual care (HCTR group) or usual care only (UC group). The patient in the HCTR group underwent a 9-week HCTR program consisting of two stages: an initial stage (1 week) conducted in hospital and the subsequent stage (eight weeks) of home-based HCTR five times weekly. Due to difficulties of proper assessment and differences in the evaluation of diastolic function in patients with atrial fibrillation, we included in our subanalysis only patients with sinus rhythm. Depending on the grade of diastolic dysfunction, patients were assigned to subgroups with mild diastolic (MDD) or severe diastolic dysfunction (SDD), both in HCTR (HCTR-MDD and HCTR-SDD) and UC groups (UC-MDD and UC-SDD). Changes from baseline to 9 weeks in echocardiographic parameters were seen only in A velocities in HCTR-MDD vs. UC-MDD; no significant shifts between groups of different diastolic dysfunction grades were observed after HCTR. All-cause mortality was higher in UC-SDD vs. UC-MDD with no difference between HCTR-SDD and HCTR-MDD. Higher probability of HF hospitalization was observed in HCTR-SDD than HCTR-MDD and in UC-SDD than UC-MDD. No differences in the probability of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization were found. CONCLUSIONS: HCTR did not influence diastolic function in HF patients in a significant manner. The grade of diastolic dysfunction had an impact on mortality only in the UC group and HF hospitalization over a 12-24-month follow-up in HCTR and UC groups.

2.
Am Heart J ; 231: 1-5, 2021 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-893408

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought about abrupt changes in the way health care is delivered, and the impact of transitioning outpatient clinic visits to telehealth visits on processes of care and outcomes is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated ordering patterns during cardiovascular telehealth clinic visits in the Duke University Health System between March 15 and June 30, 2020 and 30-day outcomes compared with in-person visits in the same time frame in 2020 and in 2019. RESULTS: Within the Duke University Health System, there was a 33.1% decrease in the number of outpatient cardiovascular visits conducted in the first 15 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with the same time period in 2019. As a proportion of total visits initially booked, 53% of visits were cancelled in 2020 compared to 35% in 2019. However, patients with cancelled visits had similar demographics and comorbidities in 2019 and 2020. Telehealth visits comprised 9.3% of total visits initially booked in 2020, with younger and healthier patients utilizing telehealth compared with those utilizing in-person visits. Compared with in-person visits in 2020, telehealth visits were associated with fewer new (31.6% for telehealth vs 44.6% for in person) or refill (12.9% vs 15.6%, respectively) medication prescriptions, electrocardiograms (4.3% vs 31.4%), laboratory orders (5.9% vs 21.8%), echocardiograms (7.3% vs 98%), and stress tests (4.4% vs 6.6%). When adjusted for age, race, and insurance status, those who had a telehealth visit or cancelled their visit were less likely to have an emergency department or hospital encounter within 30 days compared with those who had in-person visits (adjusted rate ratios (aRR) 0.76 [95% 0.65, 0.89] and aRR 0.71 [95% 0.65, 0.78], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In response to the perceived risks of routine medical care affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, different phenotypes of patients chose different types of outpatient cardiology care. A better understanding of these differences could help define necessary and appropriate mode of care for cardiology patients.


Asunto(s)
Atención Ambulatoria , COVID-19 , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Atención a la Salud/organización & administración , Control de Infecciones/métodos , Telemedicina , Atención Ambulatoria/métodos , Atención Ambulatoria/organización & administración , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Cardiología/tendencias , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/terapia , Registros Electrónicos de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2 , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA