Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Mais filtros

Intervalo de ano de publicação
JAMA Neurol ; 2019 May 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31058947


Importance: Translating evidence into clinical practice in the management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and transient ischemic attack (TIA) is challenging, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Objective: To assess the effect of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention on adherence to evidence-based therapies for care of patients with AIS and TIA. Design, Setting and Participants: This 2-arm cluster-randomized clinical trial assessed 45 hospitals and 2336 patients with AIS and TIA for eligibility before randomization. Eligible hospitals were able to provide care for patients with AIS and TIA in Brazil, Argentina, and Peru. Recruitment started September 12, 2016, and ended February 26, 2018; follow-up ended June 29, 2018. Data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle. Interventions: The multifaceted quality improvement intervention included case management, reminders, a roadmap and checklist for the therapeutic plan, educational materials, and periodic audit and feedback reports to each intervention cluster. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite adherence score for AIS and TIA performance measures. Secondary outcomes included an all-or-none composite end point of performance measures, the individual process measure components of the composite end points, and clinical outcomes at 90 days after admission (stroke recurrence, death, and disability measured by the modified Rankin scale). Results: A total of 36 hospitals and 1624 patients underwent randomization. Nineteen hospitals were randomized to the quality improvement intervention and 17 to routine care. The overall mean (SD) age of patients enrolled in the study was 69.4 (13.5) years, and 913 (56.2%) were men. Overall mean (SD) composite adherence score for the 10 performance measures in the intervention group hospitals compared with control group hospitals was 85.3% (20.1%) vs 77.8% (18.4%) (mean difference, 4.2%; 95% CI, -3.8% to 12.2%). As a secondary end point, 402 of 817 patients (49.2%) at intervention hospitals received all the therapies that they were eligible for vs 203 of 807 (25.2%) in the control hospitals (odds ratio, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.22-5.53; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: A multifaceted quality improvement intervention did not result in a significant increase in composite adherence score for evidence-based therapies in patients with AIS or TIA. However, when using an all-or-none approach, the intervention resulted in improved adherence to evidence-based therapies. Trial Registration: Identifier: NCT02223273.

JAMA cardiol. (Online) ; 4(5): 408-417, Mai. 2019. grafico, tabela
Artigo em Inglês | Sec. Est. Saúde SP, SESSP-IDPCPROD, Sec. Est. Saúde SP | ID: biblio-1022826


RESULTS Of the 1619 included patients,1029 (63.6%) weremale,1327(82.0%) had coronary artery disease (843[52.1%] with prioracutemyo cardial infarction),355(21.9%)had priorischemicstroke ortransientischemicattack,and197 (12.2%) had peripheral vascular disease,andthemean( SD) age was 65.6 (10.5) years. Among randomized clusters, 30 (75%) were cardiology sites, 6 (15%) were primary careunits,and 26 (65%) were teaching institutions.Amonge ligible patients,thosein intervention clusters were more like ly to receive aprescription of evidence-based therapies thant hose in control clusters (73.5%[515of701] vs58.7% [493of840];oddsratio,2.30;95%CI,1.14-4.65). There were no differences between the intervention and control group swithregard storisk factor control(ie,hyperlipidemia,hypertension,ordiabetes).Ratesofeducationforsmokingcessationwere higher among current smokers in the intervention group thanin the control group (51.9%[364of701] vs18.2%[153of840];oddsratio,11.24;95%CI,2.20-57.43).Therateofcardiovascularmortality,acute myocardial infarction,andstrokewas2.6%for patients from intervention cluster sand 3.4%forthose in the control group (hazardratio, 0.76;95%CI,0.43-1.34). (AU)

Humanos , Doenças Cardiovasculares/tratamento farmacológico , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Prevenção de Doenças
JAMA Cardiol ; 4(5): 408-417, 2019 May 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30942842


Importance: Studies have found that patients at high cardiovascular risk often fail to receive evidence-based therapies in community practice. Objective: To evaluate whether a multifaceted quality improvement intervention can improve the prescription of evidence-based therapies. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this 2-arm cluster randomized clinical trial, patients with established atherothrombotic disease from 40 public and private outpatient clinics (clusters) in Brazil were studied. Patients were recruited from August 2016 to August 2017, with follow-up to August 2018. Data were analyzed in September 2018. Interventions: Case management, audit and feedback reports, and distribution of educational materials (to health care professionals and patients) vs routine practice. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was prescription of evidence-based therapies (ie, statins, antiplatelet therapy, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers) using the all-or-none approach at 12 months after the intervention period in patients without contraindications. Results: Of the 1619 included patients, 1029 (63.6%) were male, 1327 (82.0%) had coronary artery disease (843 [52.1%] with prior acute myocardial infarction), 355 (21.9%) had prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, and 197 (12.2%) had peripheral vascular disease, and the mean (SD) age was 65.6 (10.5) years. Among randomized clusters, 30 (75%) were cardiology sites, 6 (15%) were primary care units, and 26 (65%) were teaching institutions. Among eligible patients, those in intervention clusters were more likely to receive a prescription of evidence-based therapies than those in control clusters (73.5% [515 of 701] vs 58.7% [493 of 840]; odds ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.14-4.65). There were no differences between the intervention and control groups with regards to risk factor control (ie, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, or diabetes). Rates of education for smoking cessation were higher among current smokers in the intervention group than in the control group (51.9% [364 of 701] vs 18.2% [153 of 840]; odds ratio, 11.24; 95% CI, 2.20-57.43). The rate of cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke was 2.6% for patients from intervention clusters and 3.4% for those in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.43-1.34). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Brazilian patients at high cardiovascular risk, a quality improvement intervention resulted in improved prescription of evidence-based therapies. Trial Registration: identifier: NCT02851732.