Effects of an Ambulation Orderly Program Among Cardiac Surgery Patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite the known benefits of ambulation, most hospitalized patients remain physically inactive. One possible approach to this problem is to employ "ambulation orderlies" (AOs) - employees whose main responsibility is to ambulate patients throughout the day. For this study, we examined an AO program implemented among postcardiac surgery patients and its effect on patient outcomes. METHODS: We evaluated postoperative length of stay, hospital complications, discharge disposition, and 30-day readmission for all patients who underwent coronary artery bypass or cardiac valve surgery in the 9 months prior to and after the introduction of the AO program. In addition to pre-post comparisons, we performed an interrupted time series analysis to adjust for temporal trends and differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: We included 447 and 478 patients in the pre- and post-AO intervention groups, respectively. Postoperative length of stay was lower in the post-AO group, with median (interquartile range) of 10 (7, 14) days vs 9 (7, 13) days (P <.001), and also had significantly less variability in mean monthly length of stay (Levene's test P = .03). Using adjusted interrupted time series analysis, the program was associated with a decreased mean monthly postoperative length of stay (-1.57 days, P = .04), as well as a significant decrease in the trend of mean monthly postoperative length of stay (P = .01). Other outcomes were unaffected. CONCLUSION: The implementation of an AO program was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative length and variability of hospital stay. These results suggest that an AO program is a reasonable and practical approach towards improving hospital outcomes.

Aspirin use in heart failure: is low-dose therapy associated with mortality and morbidity benefits in a large community population?

Background- Aspirin use in heart failure (HF) is controversial. The drug has proven benefit in comorbidities associated with HF; however, retrospective analysis of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor trials and prospective comparisons with warfarin have shown increased risk of morbidity with aspirin use. This study aims to evaluate the association of low-dose aspirin with mortality and morbidity risk in a large community-based cohort. Methods and Results- This was a retrospective cohort study of patients attending an HF disease management program. Aspirin use at baseline and its association with mortality and HF hospitalization in the population was examined. Of 1476 patients (mean age, 70.4±12.4 years; 63% men), 892 (60.4%) were prescribed aspirin. Low-dose aspirin (75 mg/d) was prescribed to 828 (92.8%) patients. Median follow-up time was 2.6 (0.8-4.5) years. During the follow-up period, 464 (31.4%) patients died. In adjusted analysis, low-dose aspirin use was associated with reduced mortality risk compared with nonaspirin use (hazard ratio=0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.74), and this was confirmed by a propensity-matched subgroup analysis. Low-dose aspirin use was associated with reduced risk of HF hospitalization compared with nonaspirin use in the total population (adjusted hazard ratio=0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.90). In adjusted analysis, there was no difference in mortality or HF hospitalization between high-dose aspirin users (>75 mg/d) and nonaspirin users. Conclusions- In this study, low-dose aspirin therapy was associated with a significant reduction in mortality and morbidity risk during long-term follow-up. These results suggest that low-dose aspirin may have a continuing role in secondary prevention in HF and underline the need for more trials of low-dose aspirin use in HF.

Factors affecting patient access in Thailand: understanding delay in care seeking for patients with cancer.

While nearly three-quarters of cancer mortalities occur in low- and middle-income countries, we know little about the factors contributing to patient delays in seeking care for cancer. Our study employs a multifactorial approach by examining three key areas: patient socio-demographic factors, structural factors of health-care access and cancer patients' beliefs about their illness and cancer in general as potential determinants of their delay in seeking care in Thailand. We conducted a cross-sectional study using a systematic sample of 264 patients with cancer treated during 2006-2007 at Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn Cancer Centre, a hospital of the National Cancer Institute of Thailand. We defined patient delay as when a patient waited more than 3 months after symptom onset to seek medical care. We used bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression to examine unadjusted and adjusted associations of patient delays in seeking care with: patient socio-demographic factors, structural factors of health-care access and patients' beliefs about their illness in particular and about cancer in general. We also obtained patient self-reports about their reasons for delaying care. In multivariate analysis, only patient-belief factors were significantly associated with delay. Patients who believed that the primary causes of cancer were non-medical (vs. medical) were more likely to delay seeking care (adjusted odds ratio (OR)=4.37, 95% confidence interval (CI)=2.27-8.67). Patients who believed that cancer was probably curable or was curable (vs. incurable) were significantly less likely to delay seeking care (adjusted OR=0.2, 95% CI=0.08-0.56; adjusted OR=0.18, 95% CI=0.07-0.49, respectively). Patient socio-demographic factors and structural factors of health-care access were not significantly associated (p>0.05). Our findings suggest that interventions to reduce delays in care seeking should address patient beliefs regarding cancer in order to effectively mitigate barriers to access.

Prospective analysis of LDL-C goal achievement and self-reported medication adherence among statin users in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in the control of LDL-C levels have occurred in the past decade due to the introduction of increasingly potent statins, such as atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. Many patients, however, do not achieve their LDL-C goals, which presents a practical dilemma for clinicians and highlights the need to identify adherence problems in a clinically relevant manner. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between LDL-C goal achievement and both medication adherence and beliefs assessed using structured questioning. METHODS: All patients were aged ≥40 years and participated in the cardiovascular risk factor management program STOP-HF (St. Vincent's Screening To Prevent Heart Failure study). One hundred and eighty-five participants who had been prescribed statins, split between those who achieved and those who did not achieve LDL-C goal, were randomly selected for a prospective study examining the relationship between adherence, assessed by the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS), and LDL-C goal achievement. Patients' beliefs about medicines were assessed using the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-General (BMQ-G). Main outcome measures were predictors of LDL-C goal achievement and medication adherence and predictors of adherence among patients using the MMAS. RESULTS: The average age of the selected patients was 64.9 (9.9) years; 45% were male, 46% had hypertension, 17.5% had coronary artery disease, and 10% had diabetes. Questionnaires were answered by 119 patients, 71 of whom (59.7%) were goal achievers. LDL-C goal achievers were more likely to respond to the questionnaires than nonachievers (76.8% vs 52.7%; P = 0.002). Fifty-eight respondents (48.7%) reported that they were not fully adherent to medication and in multivariable analysis were twice as likely to miss LDL-C goal compared with those who were adherent. Approximately 25% of patients who reported nonadherence were intentionally so. Patients' beliefs about medicines were a significant predictor of self-reported adherence but not of LDL-C goal achievement. CONCLUSIONS: Medication nonadherence may be responsible for failure to achieve goal in many patients who are prescribed statins. In routine clinical care, the structured MMAS questionnaire may provide clinicians with an effective tool to assess medication nonadherence in the context of statin therapy failure. STOP-HF ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00921960.

Are beta2-agonists responsible for increased mortality in heart failure?

AIMS: Previous large-scale, retrospective studies have shown increased mortality in heart failure (HF) patients using ß2-agonists (B2As). We further examined the relationship between B2A use and mortality in a well-characterized population by adjusting for natriuretic peptide levels as a measure of HF severity. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients attending an HF Disease Management Programme with mean follow-up of 2.9 ± 2.4 years. Chart review confirmed B2A use, dose and duration of use, and documented pulmonary function evaluation. The primary endpoint was the effect of B2A use compared with no B2A use on mortality using unadjusted and adjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Data were available for 1294 patients (age 70.6 ± 11.5 years) of whom 64% were male and 22.2% were taking B2As. ß2-Agonist users were older, more likely to be male, to have smoked, to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, and less likely to take beta-blockers. Multivariable associates of mortality included: B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), coronary artery disease, age, and beta-blocker use. Unadjusted mortality rates for B2A users were found to be significantly higher than non-B2A users [hazard ratio (HR) 1.304, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.030-1.652, P= 0.028]. However, when adjusted for age, sex, medication, co-morbidity, smoking, COPD, and BNP differences, overall mortality rates were similar [HR 1.043, 95% CI (0.771-1.412), P= 0.783]. CONCLUSION: Unlike previous reports, this retrospective evaluation of B2A therapy in HF patients shows no relationship with long-term mortality when adjusted for population differences including BNP.  Large, prospective studies are required to define the risk/benefit ratio of B2As in patients with heart failure.

Factors influencing dietary protein sources in the PREMIER trial population.

Previous research suggests that protein intake, particularly plant protein, may benefit blood pressure control. However, very little has been published regarding protein sources in diets of US adults and factors influencing these choices. The purpose of this report is to describe specific sources of animal and plant proteins in diets of PREMIER clinical trial participants at baseline and how the PREMIER intervention, along with participant demographics, affected protein sources. Adult participants (n=809) who completed the 18-month PREMIER lifestyle intervention trial and had at least one diet recall at each of three study visits were included. Participants were recruited from four clinical centers in the Eastern, Southern, and Northeastern regions of United States. The PREMIER trial, conducted from 1999 to 2002, compared the impact on blood pressure of two structured behavioral interventions focusing on the traditional lifestyle modifications for blood pressure control with or without the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension dietary pattern. Protein sources were assessed by two unannounced 24-hour recalls at each of three study visits. Differences in protein sources were mainly related to participant demographics, with relatively moderate impact of the intervention. The top four protein sources for all the study participants were poultry, dairy, refined grains and beef, each contributing approximately 10% to 17% in descending order to the total protein intake at baseline. Animal and plant protein each comprised approximately 66% and 34%, respectively, to the total daily protein intake at baseline, and such overall contribution pattern remained relatively constant over time. However, sex, race, age, and body weight status all influenced contribution patterns from different food groups significantly. These influences significantly impact choice and are essential elements to consider when designing intervention programs to alter protein contributions from animal vs plant sources.