ABSTRACT
The joint European Registry of patients with cardiovascular diseases participating in cardiac rehabilitation programs (European Cardiac Rehabilitation Database, EuroCaReD) is conducted in collaboration between the ESC and EACPR). It's main goals were to improve the routine use of cardiac rehabilitation, to develop joint standards for cardiac rehabilitation in all European countries and evidence based rehabilitation programs and to monitor any changes. In the EuroCaReD registry participated a total of 44 centers from 13 countries, including 3 centers from Russia, which enrolled 151 patients during 2010-2012. This paper is comparing the baseline demographics, clinical data and risk factors in Russian patients versus the rest of Europe. It was shown that cardiac rehabilitation patients in Russia, as in the whole cohort, are predominantly male. Elderly patients from Russia were 3 times less likely to be referred for rehabilitation than in Europe. Unlike the whole cohort Russian patients were almost never sent to rehabilitation because of heart failure or stable angina. Likewise the whole Europe Russian patients had an average of 3 cardiovascular risk factors before rehabilitation, but with some national differences in their prevalence and severity.
Subject(s)
Cardiac Rehabilitation , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Cooperative Behavior , Registries , Aged , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Risk Factors , Russia/epidemiologySubject(s)
Alcoholism/mortality , Cardiomyopathy, Alcoholic/mortality , Myocardial Infarction/mortality , Female , Health Status , Humans , Male , Survival RateSubject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Hyperlipidemias , Myocardial Ischemia , Secondary Prevention , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cardiovascular Agents/therapeutic use , Comparative Effectiveness Research , Cross-Cultural Comparison , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/metabolism , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/physiopathology , Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Hyperlipidemias/complications , Hyperlipidemias/drug therapy , Hyperlipidemias/epidemiology , Hyperlipidemias/metabolism , Hyperlipidemias/physiopathology , Hypolipidemic Agents/therapeutic use , International Cooperation , Male , Middle Aged , Monitoring, Physiologic , Myocardial Ischemia/complications , Myocardial Ischemia/epidemiology , Myocardial Ischemia/metabolism , Myocardial Ischemia/physiopathology , Myocardial Ischemia/prevention & control , Myocardial Ischemia/psychology , Patient Compliance , Physical Fitness , Risk Factors , Smoking/adverse effects , Smoking/blood , Smoking/epidemiology , Smoking/psychologyABSTRACT
Attitude of district internists to the realization of a concept of secondary prevention (SP) of ischemic heart disease was studied in one of large cities in Russia. Among preparations most necessary for SP the following were named: b-blockers (79.5%), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (49.3%), antiaggregants (43.8%), hypolipidemic drugs (13.7%), nitrates (63%), biologically active supplements, phyto-preparations, metabolic drugs, and glycosides (3-5% each). However actually prescribed drugs were b-blockers (100%), nitrates (96%), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (89%), calcium antagonists (87%), antiaggregants (83%), cardiac glycosides (66%), vitamins (39%). Average doses of drugs were low: 21.7, 47.4 and 35.5% of possible maximal doses for statins, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, and beta-blockers, respectively. Nondrug measures were used "rarely" and "often" by 26 and 74% of physicians, respectively. Only 18% of physicians directed their patients to corresponding specialists. Recommendations were mostly formal, without explanation of goals, methods and specific features of recommended measures. Moreover their prescription by physician was determined largely by subjective factors: availability of sufficient time (50%), cultural level of a patient (79%), patient's own initiative (33%), physician's personal attitude to a patient (21%).
