Patient characteristics and reasons for discontinuation in a cardiovascular risk management programme in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Since 2010, an increasing number of patients have participated in a nurse-led integrated cardiovascular risk management programme in the Netherlands. Because it is important to understand which patients discontinue and why, when evaluating the effectiveness of the care programme, the aim was to identify the reasons for discontinuation. METHODS: Electronic health records of 3997 patients enrolled in a nurse-led integrated cardiovascular risk management programme that started on April 1st, 2010, were manually scrutinized for reasons for discontinuation between April 1st, 2010, and April 1st, 2018. In addition to death and moving to a diabetes care programme, we describe 7 different reasons why patients discontinued the programme and compared the patient characteristics of those who discontinued the programme without specific reasons with those who remained in the care programme for 8 years. RESULTS: Between April 1st, 2010, and April 1st, 2018, 1,190 participants (29.8%) discontinued the CVRM care programme, of whom 271 participants died (6.8%) and 195 were transferred to a diabetes care programme (4.9%). The remaining 724 patients (18.1%) participated 5 years before discontinuation. Of these, 67 (9.3%) had a previous cardiovascular event at the start of the programme. In 355 patients, a specific reason for discontinuation was not found. At baseline, these patients less frequently had a history of CVD than those who continued the programme for 8 years (1.7 vs. 22.6%), were younger (62 vs. 67 years), had less registered cardiovascular comorbidity (atrial fibrillation: 1.1 vs. 7.2%; congestive heart failure 0.3 vs. 1.2%; chronic kidney disease 0.0 vs. 4.5%), were more often smokers (13.0% vs. 4.3%) and took blood pressure- and lipid-lowering drugs twice as often. CONCLUSIONS: In our study we observed that participants who discontinued the nurse-led integrated CVRM care programme between 2010 and 2018 without specific reason or on request were younger, without previous CVD, had less cardiovascular comorbidity and were better adjusted to medication. Exploring the patients' reasons for discontinuation can contribute to an individualized approach to prevent or reduce discontinuation.

Cardiovascular risk reduction with integrated care: results of 8 years follow up.

BACKGROUND: Care groups organize integrated cardiovascular risk management programs in primary care for high risk patients. Results of long term cardiovascular risk management are scarce. The aim was to describe changes in low density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure and smoking between 2011 and 2018 in patients participating in an integrated program for cardiovascular risk management organized by a care group in the Netherlands. AIM: To explore whether long-term participation in an integrated cardiovascular risk management program could lead to the improvement of 3 important risk factors for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A protocol was developed for delegated practice nurse activities. A multidisciplinary data registry was used for uniform registration. The care group organized annual education for general practitioners and practice nurses on cardiovascular topics and regular meetings for practice nurses only to discuss complex patient cases and implementation issues. From 2015 onwards, the care group started with practice visitations to discuss performance and support practices with organizing integrated care. RESULTS: In patients eligible for primary prevention as well as for secondary prevention similar trends were observed: lipid modifying and blood pressure lowering medication increased, mean low density lipoprotein cholesterol and mean systolic blood pressure decreased, patients on target for low density lipoprotein cholesterol and systolic blood pressure increased and the proportion of non-smokers with both low density lipoprotein cholesterol and systolic blood pressure on target increased. Improved registration between 2011 and 2013 was partly responsible for the sharp increase of patients on target for low density lipoprotein cholesterol and systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION: In patients participating in an integrated cardiovascular risk management program, we saw annual improvements in 3 important cardiovascular risk factors between 2011 and 2018.

Prehospital risk assessment in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To review, inventory and compare available diagnostic tools and investigate which tool has the best performance for prehospital risk assessment in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline and Embase were searched up till 1 April 2021. Prospective studies with patients, suspected of NSTE-ACS, presenting in the primary care setting or by emergency medical services (EMS) were included. The most important exclusion criteria were studies including only patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and studies before 1995, the pretroponin era. The primary end point was the final hospital discharge diagnosis of NSTE-ACS or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 6 weeks. Risk of bias was evaluated by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Criteria. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio of findings for risk stratification in patients suspected of NSTE-ACS. RESULTS: In total, 15 prospective studies were included; these studies reflected in total 26 083 patients. No specific variables related to symptoms, physical examination or risk factors were useful in risk stratification for NSTE-ACS diagnosis. The most useful electrocardiographic finding was ST-segment depression (LR+3.85 (95% CI 2.58 to 5.76)). Point-of-care troponin was found to be a strong predictor for NSTE-ACS in primary care (LR+14.16 (95% CI 4.28 to 46.90) and EMS setting (LR+6.16 (95% CI 5.02 to 7.57)). Combined risk scores were the best for risk assessment in an NSTE-ACS. From the combined risk scores that can be used immediately in a prehospital setting, the PreHEART score, a validated combined risk score for prehospital use, derived from the HEART score (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin), was most useful for risk stratification in patients with NSTE-ACS (LR+8.19 (95% CI 5.47 to 12.26)) and for identifying patients without ACS (LR-0.05 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.15)). DISCUSSION: Important study limitations were verification bias and heterogeneity between studies. In the prehospital setting, several diagnostic tools have been reported which could improve risk stratification, triage and early treatment in patients suspected for NSTE-ACS. On-site assessment of troponin and combined risk scores derived from the HEART score are strong predictors. These results support further studies to investigate the impact of these new tools on logistics and clinical outcome. FUNDING: This study is funded by ZonMw, the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This meta-analysis was published for registration in PROSPERO prior to starting (CRD York, CRD42021254122).