[A Single Preventive Counseling in the Hospital Does Not Improve the Prognosis of Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention].

The purpose of the study "Invasive Techniques for the treatment of atherosclerosis: the effectiveness of secondary preventive intervention" (IMLA-TRAC) - long-term efficacy of single preventive counseling of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in a stationary treatment for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, controlled trial included 160 patients with coronary artery disease who underwent PCI between the ages of 38 to 87 years (mean age 59,43+/-8,94 years, 81.9% male). Included in the study, patients were randomized in a ratio of 1: 1 into 2 groups - the primary (n=80) and control (n=80). Patients in both groups received standard hospital treatment and hospital doctors recommendations. In addition to these patients of the main group carried out a preventive educational program After being discharged from hospital patients in both groups were followed for 12 months. RESULTS: The study showed that a single prevention counseling, conducted in patients with coronary heart disease at the stage of hospital treatment over a planned or emergency PCI, does not provide a stable positive dynamics of the main risk factors and has no effect on mortality and combined end point. There is only a small positive dynamics of individual indicators, for example, significantly lower intake of saturated fats, an increase in adherence to treatment, in particular, receive aspirin. CONCLUSION: Further studies are needed to determine the most effective models for preventive intervention in patients with coronary artery disease, which can start in a hospital, but should continue on an outpatient or remote formats.

[Monitoring the Secondary Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease in Europe and Russia: Results of the Russian Part of the International Multicenter Study EUROASPIRE IV].

The results of the Russian part of the EUROASPIRE IV study show that we have a large room for improvement of traditional risk factors management in CAD patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndromes, PCI or CABG (at average in 1.7 years of follow-up after index events). It is also true for other European countries, although certain differences exist between Russian and whole study population. In some respects, the results of secondary prevention in Russian patients were even more successful: e.g. effective blood pressure control was achieved in 73.4% of our patients taking antihypertensive drugs vs 53.5% in whole study population. In contrast, smoking was more prevalent among Russian patients (22.2% vs 15.0% in other countries). Obviously, it was related to lower frequency of smoking cessation support offered to our patients: only 1.1% were referred to a smoking cessation program, 3.2% were prescribed nicotine replacement therapy, none were prescribed varenicline (vs 18.6, 22.9, 6.2%, respectively, in whole study population). The Russian cohort had the highest rate of overweight and obesity compared to other European countries (93.1 vs 82.1% in whole study population). 74.9% our patients received lipid lowering drugs (vs 86.6% in Europe), although the LDL-C goal was achieved only in 15.9% of our patients taking lipid lowering drugs (vs 21.1% in whole study population).