Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 Oct;99(19):1421-30.
doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-303989. Epub 2013 Jun 28.

Effect of a nurse-coordinated prevention programme on cardiovascular risk after an acute coronary syndrome: main results of the RESPONSE randomised trial

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of a nurse-coordinated prevention programme on cardiovascular risk after an acute coronary syndrome: main results of the RESPONSE randomised trial

Harald T Jorstad et al. Heart. 2013 Oct.
Free PMC article

Abstract

Objective: To quantify the impact of a practical, hospital-based nurse-coordinated prevention programme on cardiovascular risk, integrated into the routine clinical care of patients discharged after an acute coronary syndrome, as compared with usual care only.

Design: RESPONSE (Randomised Evaluation of Secondary Prevention by Outpatient Nurse SpEcialists) was a randomised clinical trial.

Setting: Multicentre trial in secondary and tertiary healthcare settings.

Participants: 754 patients admitted for acute coronary syndrome.

Intervention: A nurse-coordinated prevention programme, consisting of four outpatient nurse clinic visits, focusing on healthy lifestyles, biometric risk factors and medication adherence, in addition to usual care.

Main outcome measures: The main outcome was 10-year cardiovascular mortality risk as estimated by Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included Framingham Coronary Risk Score at 12 months, in addition to changes in individual risk factors. Risk factor control was classified as 'poor' if 0 to 3 factors were on target, 'fair' if 4 to 6 factors were on target, and 'good' if 7 to 9 were on target.

Results: The mean Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation at 12 months was 4.4 per cent (SD 4.5) in the intervention group and 5.4 per cent (SD 6.2) in the control group (p=0.021), representing a 17.4% relative risk reduction. At 12 months, risk factor control classified as 'good' was achieved in 35% of patients in the intervention group compared with 25% in the control group (p=0.003). Attendance to the nurse-coordinated prevention programme was 92%. In the intervention group, 86 rehospitalisations were observed against 132 in the control group (relative risk reduction 34.8%, p=0.023).

Conclusions: The nurse-coordinated hospital-based prevention programme in addition to usual care is a practical, yet effective method for reduction of cardiovascular risk in patients with coronary disease. Our data suggest that the counselling component of the programme may lead to a reduction in hospital readmissions.

Trial registration trialregisternl identifier: TC1290.

Keywords: Coronary Artery Disease.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial profile.
Figure 2
Figure 2
SCORE cardiovascular mortality estimation. SCORE at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. Error bars show 95%-CIs. ACS=acute coronary syndrome.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Classification of achievement of risk factor targets per patient (%). Poor control is classified as 0–3 risk factors, fair control is classified as 4–6 risk factors and good control is classified as 7–9 risk factors on target. Risk factors are smoking, body-mass index <25 kg/m2, waist circumference for women ≤80 cm, waist circumference for men ≤94 cm, systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg, LDL cholesterol ≤2.5 mmol/L, physical activity ≥30 min ≥5 times per week, vegetable consumption ≥200 grams daily, fruit consumption ≥2 pieces daily, alcohol consumption for women ≤2 units per day, alcohol consumption for men ≤3 units per day.

References

    1. Smith SC, Allen J, Blair SN, et al. AHA/ACC guidelines for secondary prevention for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2006 update: endorsed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Circulation 2006;113:2363–72 - PubMed
    1. De Backer G, Ambrosioni E, Borch-Johnsen K, et al. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: third joint task force of European and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (constituted by representatives of eight societies and by invited experts). Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2003;10:S1–S10 - PubMed
    1. Kotseva K, Wood D, De Backer G, et al. EUROASPIRE III: a survey on the lifestyle, risk factors and use of cardioprotective drug therapies in coronary patients from 22 European countries. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2009;16:121–37 - PubMed
    1. Murchie P, Campbell NC, Ritchie LD, et al. Secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease: four year follow up of a randomised controlled trial in primary care. BMJ 2003;326:84. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wood DA, Kotseva K, Connolly S, et al. Nurse-coordinated multidisciplinary, family-based cardiovascular disease prevention programme (EUROACTION) for patients with coronary heart disease and asymptomatic individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a paired, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008;371:1999–2012 - PubMed

Publication types