Unidimensional Longitudinal Strain: A Simple Approach for the Assessment of Longitudinal Myocardial Deformation by Echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Impaired left ventricular (LV) longitudinal function (LF) is a known predictor of cardiac events in patients with heart failure, but two-dimensional strain imaging, the reference method to measure myocardial deformation, is not always feasible or available. Therefore, reliable and reproducible alternatives are needed. The aim of the present study was to evaluate unidimensional longitudinal strain (ULS) as a simple echocardiographic parameter for the assessment of LV LF. METHODS: Two hundred two patients with dilated cardiomyopathy who had their first presentation in the authors' cardiology department, as well as the same number of age- and gender-matched control subjects, were prospectively included in this study. ULS was compared with global longitudinal strain (GLS), the current gold standard for LV LF assessment by echocardiography. Uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the prognostic value of ULS. RESULTS: LV LF was higher in the control group compared with patients: GLS -19.5 ± 1.7% versus -12.6 ± 4.8% and ULS -16.3 ± 1.5% versus -10.2 ± 3.9% (P < .001 for each). Correlation between ULS and GLS was excellent (r = 0.94), while Bland-Altman plots revealed lower values for ULS (bias -2.76%, limits of agreement ±3.31%). During a mean follow-up time of 39 months, the combined end point of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for acute cardiac decompensation was reached by 28 patients (13.9%). GLS (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.34; P < .001) and ULS (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.39; P < .001) had comparable prognostic impact on patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: ULS might be an alternative echocardiographic method for the assessment of LV LF, with similar diagnostic and prognostic value compared with GLS.

Effectiveness of a complex intervention on Prioritising Multimedication in Multimorbidity (PRIMUM) in primary care: results of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Investigate the effectiveness of a complex intervention aimed at improving the appropriateness of medication in older patients with multimorbidity in general practice. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with general practice as unit of randomisation. SETTING: 72 general practices in Hesse, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 505 randomly sampled, cognitively intact patients (≥60 years, ≥3 chronic conditions under pharmacological treatment, ≥5 long-term drug prescriptions with systemic effects); 465 patients and 71 practices completed the study. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention group (IG): The healthcare assistant conducted a checklist-based interview with patients on medication-related problems and reconciled their medications. Assisted by a computerised decision support system, the general practitioner optimised medication, discussed it with patients and adjusted it accordingly. The control group (CG) continued with usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a modified Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI, excluding item 10 on cost-effectiveness), assessed in blinded medication reviews and calculated as the difference between baseline and after 6 months; secondary outcomes after 6 and 9 months' follow-up: quality of life, functioning, medication adherence, and so on. RESULTS: At baseline, a high proportion of patients had appropriate to mildly inappropriate prescriptions (MAI 0-5 points: n=350 patients). Randomisation revealed balanced groups (IG: 36 practices/252 patients; CG: 36/253). Intervention had no significant effect on primary outcome: mean MAI sum scores decreased by 0.3 points in IG and 0.8 points in CG, resulting in a non-significant adjusted mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI -0.2 to 1.6) points in favour of CG. Secondary outcomes showed non-significant changes (quality of life slightly improved in IG but continued to decline in CG) or remained stable (functioning, medication adherence). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention had no significant effects. Many patients already received appropriate prescriptions and enjoyed good quality of life and functional status. We can therefore conclude that in our study, there was not enough scope for improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN99526053. NCT01171339; Results.

Secondary prevention in patients with coronary heart diseases: what factors are associated with health status in usual primary care?

BACKGROUND: For patients with coronary heart diseases a substantial part of secondary prevention is delivered in primary care. Along with the growing importance of prevention, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an indicator of patient-centered care that has gained increased attention. Different approaches for reorganization in primary care have been associated with improvements in HRQoL. However, these are often results of complex interventions. Evidence on aspects concerning usual primary care that actually have an impact on HRQoL remains scarce. Therefore, this observational study aimed to identify factors which are associated with HRQoL in usual primary care at practice and patient-level. METHODS: This observational study was conducted in eight European countries. We were able to match data from survey instruments for 3505 patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in 228 practices. A multilevel analysis was performed to identify associations of EQ-5D scores at patient and practice-level. RESULTS: After dropping patients with missing information, our cohort consisted of 2656 patients. In this sample, 30.5% were female and the mean age was 67.5 years (SD 10.1). The final model included a total set of 14 potential explanatory variables. At practice-level no variable was associated with EQ-5D. At patient-level, lower education (r = -0.0381, p<0.0001), female gender (r = -0.0543, p<0.0001) and a higher number of other conditions (r = -0.0340, p<0.0001), had a strong negative effect on HRQoL. Strong positive associations with HRQoL were found for a good medication adherence (Morisky) (r = 0.0195, p<0.0001) and more positive evaluations of physicians' clinical behavior (r = 0.0282, p = 0.002). In terms of HRQoL no differences between single-handed and group practices exist. CONCLUSION: The results of our study suggest that a better patient-physician relationship rather than organization of CHD care is associated with higher HRQOL in the primary care setting. The results may imply that interventions to improve HRQoL require a strong patient-centered approach.