Effects on physical activity, physical fitness and well-being in a 36-months randomized controlled study, comparing a multimodal hospital-based intervention programme for primary cardiovascular prevention with usual care.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, and primary prevention efforts are poorly developed in people at high cardiovascular risk. On this background, we performed the Hjerteløftet Study and demonstrated that participation over 36 months in a multimodal primary prevention programme, significantly reduced validated cardiovascular risk scores. In the current substudy we aimed to further explore several elements and effects following the intervention programme. METHODS: A random sample from the original Hjerteløftet Study was included for further examinations (n = 255, 40% women), and these patients were already randomized to an intervention group (IG) (n = 127), or a control group (CG) (n = 128). We compared changes from baseline to 36-months follow-up in physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness, psychological well-being (WHO-5), cardiovascular medication use, smoking habits, and cardiometabolic risk factors (blood pressure, lipids, blood glucose, HbA1c, Apolipoprotein A-I, Apolipoprotein B and high-sensitive C-reactive protein). RESULTS: Self-reported physical activity increased significantly with absolute difference in mean delta Physical Activity Index score in the IG compared to the CG: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.10 to 1.70, p = 0.028 (ANCOVA). There were no corresponding differences in cardiorespiratory fitness. The participation resulted in psychological well-being improvement in both groups with a larger increase in the IG compared to the CG. The mean difference in delta WHO-5 score was 5.06, 95% CI: 0.68 to 9.45, p = 0.024, and 3.28, 95% CI: -0.69 to 5.25, p = 0.104 when controlled for baseline values (ANCOVA). The use of antihypertensive medication increased significantly more in the CG (p = 0.044). Only minor, nonsignificant changes were observed for traditional risk factors and cardiometabolic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the Hjerteløftet Study intervention programme resulted in an improved physical activity level, but without changing cardiorespiratory fitness. Participation in the programme also tended to improve psychological well-being, possibly related to increased physical activity, less smoking and less use of cardiovascular medication. Concerning the metabolic status, no major differences were observed, but minor changes may have been concealed by a larger increase in cardiovascular medication use in the control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01741428), 04/12/2012.

Randomized trial of cardiovascular prevention in Norway combining an in-hospital lifestyle course with primary care follow-up: the Hjerteløftet study.

AIMS: Cardiovascular risk factor control is suboptimal in Europe, including Norway. The present study examined the efficacy of a multimodal primary prevention intervention programme based on the existing Norwegian health care system. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this open-label randomized controlled trial, adult patients with elevated cardiovascular risk were randomly assigned to an intervention programme including a hospital-based lifestyle course and primary care follow-up or to a control group (CG). The participants were recruited between 2011 and 2015. Primary outcome was change in validated cardiovascular risk scores, national and international (NORRISK, NORRISK 2, Framingham, PROCAM) between baseline and follow-up. Secondary outcomes included major cardiovascular risk factors. After 36 months the NORRISK score was significantly improved in patients assigned to the intervention group (IG) compared to patients assigned to the CG; absolute difference in mean delta score in the IG (n = 305) compared to mean delta score in the CG (n = 296): -0.92, 95% CI: -1.48 to -0.36, P = 0.001. The results for NORRISK 2, Framingham and PROCAM showed similar significant effects. The secondary endpoints including total cholesterol and blood pressure were only minimally, and non-significantly, reduced in the IG, but the proportion of smokers (P = 0.0028) and with metabolic syndrome (P < 0.0001) were significantly reduced. A limited number of cardiovascular events were observed, IG (n = 9), CG (n = 16). CONCLUSION: In subjects with elevated cardiovascular risk, a newly developed prevention programme, combining a hospital-based lifestyle course and primary care follow-up, significantly reduced cardiovascular risk scores after 36 months. This benefit appeared achievable primarily through improvements in metabolic syndrome characteristics and smoking habits.The study protocol was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01741428).

Long-term effects (> 24 months) of multiple lifestyle intervention on major cardiovascular risk factors among high-risk subjects: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The evidence of the long-term effects of multiple lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular risk is uncertain. We aimed to summarize the evidence from randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of lifestyle intervention on major cardiovascular risk factors in subjects at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: Eligible trials investigated the impact of lifestyle intervention versus usual care with minimum 24 months follow-up, reporting more than one major cardiovascular risk factor. A literature search updated April 15, 2020 identified 12 eligible studies. The results from individual trials were combined, using fixed and random effect models, using the standardized mean difference (SMD) to estimate effect sizes. Small-study effect was evaluated, and heterogeneity between studies examined, by subgroup and meta-regression analyses, considering patient- and study-level variables. RESULTS: Small-study effect was not identified. Lifestyle intervention reduced systolic blood pressure modestly with an estimated SMD of - 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): - 0.21 to - 0.04, with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 59%), corresponding to a mean difference of approximately 2 mmHg (MD = - 1.86, 95% CI - 3.14 to - 0.57, p = 0.0046). This effect disappeared in the subgroup of trials judged at low risk of bias (SMD = 0.02, 95% CI - 0.08 to 0.11). For the outcome total cholesterol SMD was - 0.06, 95% CI - 0.13 to 0.00, with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%), indicating no effect of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Lifestyle intervention resulted in only a modest effect on systolic blood pressure and no effect on total cholesterol after 24 months. Further lifestyle trials should consider the challenge of maintaining larger long-term benefits to ensure impact on cardiovascular outcomes.