Discharge Information About Adverse Drug Reactions Indicates Lower Self-Reported Adverse Drug Reactions and Fewer Concerns in Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

AIM: There are discrepancies between the information patients desire about adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and the information they receive from healthcare providers; this is an impediment to shared decision-making. This study aimed to establish whether patients received information about ADRs resulting from prescribed pharmacotherapy, before hospital discharge, after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to determine whether receiving information about ADRs was associated with incidence of self-reported ADRs or concerns related to prescribed pharmacotherapy. METHODS: CONCARDPCI, a prospective multicentre cohort study including 3,417 consecutive patients after PCI, was conducted at seven high-volume referral PCI centres in two Nordic countries. Clinical data were collected from patients' medical records and national quality registries. Patient-reported outcome measures were registered 2 months (T1), 6 months (T2), and 12 months (T3) after discharge. Covariate-adjusted logistic regression yielded adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: At discharge, 38% of participants had been informed about potential ADRs. For these patients, the incidence of self-reported ADRs was significantly lower at T1 (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.50-0.74; p<0.001), T2 (aOR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49-0.74; p<0.001), and T3 (aOR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46-0.71; p<0.001). Those who were not informed reported higher levels of concern about prescribed pharmacotherapy at all measuring points (p<0.001 for all comparisons). Those living alone (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92; p=0.008), who were female (aOR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.72; p<0.001), and with three or more versus no comorbidities (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.84; p=0.002) were less likely to receive information. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of patients were not informed about potential ADRs from prescribed pharmacotherapy after PCI. Patients informed about ADRs had lower incidences of self-reported ADRs and fewer concerns about prescribed pharmacotherapy.

Uptake and implementation of cardiac telerehabilitation: A systematic review of provider and system barriers and enablers.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac telerehabilitation has demonstrated effectiveness for patient health outcomes, but uptake and implementation into practice have been limited and variable. While patient-level influences on uptake have been identified, little is known about provider- and system-level factors. AIMS: To identify provider and system barriers and enablers to uptake and implementation of cardiac telerehabilitation. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, including a search of six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) from 2000 to March 2023. Two reviewers independently screened eligible articles. Study quality was evaluated according to study design by the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative data, the Appraisal Tool for Cross-sectional Studies (AXIS), and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for mixed methods. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Twenty eligible studies (total 1674 participants) were included. Perceived provider-level barriers included that cardiac telerehabilitation is resource intensive, inferior to centre-based delivery, and lack of staff preparation. Whereas provider-level enablers were having access to resources, adequate staff preparation, positive staff beliefs regarding cardiac telerehabilitation and positive team dynamics. System-level barriers related to unaligned policy, healthcare system and insurance structures, technology issues, lack of plans for implementation, and inadequate resources. System-level enablers included cost-effectiveness, technology availability, reliability, and adaptability, and adequate program development, implementation planning and leadership support. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers and enablers at both provider and system levels must be recognised and addressed at the local context to ensure better uptake of cardiac telerehabilitation programs.

Use of health services and perceived need for information and follow-up after percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Few patients achieve full control of their coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors. Follow-up, such as cardiac rehabilitation, is important to increase adherence to lifestyle changes and treatment, to improve the patient's risk profile, and to treat established complications of CAD clinical events. However, the type of follow-up patients receive varies. Therefore, the aim of this research note was to describe and compare patients' self-reported use of health services, the type of follow-up patients reported to prefer, and the type of information patients reported to be important, in two countries with different follow-up practices after PCI. RESULTS: We included 3417 patients in Norway and Denmark, countries with different follow-up strategies after PCI. The results showed large differences between the countries regarding health services used. In Denmark the most frequently used health services were consultations at outpatient clinics followed by visits to the general practitioner and visits to the fitness centre, whereas in Norway visits to the general practitioner were most common, followed by rehospitalisation and no follow-up used. However, patients found the same type of follow-up and information important in both countries. Patients' perceived need for follow-up and information decreased over time, suggesting a need for early follow-up when the patients are motivated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03810612 (18/01/2019).

Appropriateness and outcomes of hospitalized patients telemetry monitored for cardiac arrhythmias in accordance with the American Heart Association Practice Standards-A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: To the best of our knowledge, no prospective research studies have compared clinical practice to the American Heart Association (AHA) updated practice standards for in-hospital telemetry monitoring. OBJECTIVES: Our aims were therefore (1) to investigate how patients were assigned to telemetry monitoring in accordance with the AHA's updated practice standards, (2) to determine the number and type of arrhythmic events, and (3) to describe subsequent changes in clinical management. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study included 1154 patients at three university hospitals in Norway. Data were collected 24/7 over a four-week period, with follow-up measurements from telemetry admission until hospital discharge. RESULTS: Of patients assigned to telemetry, 67 % (n = 767) met practice standards, corresponding to AHA Class I or II. Patients were predominantly men (65 %, n = 748), and the mean age was 65 years (SD ±16). The study included both patients with cardiac and non-cardiac diagnoses from various medical and surgical departments throughout the hospitals. Ninety-one percent of the patients in Class III were monitored based on indications that were reclassified from Class II to Class III (not indicated) in the updated practice standards (patients admitted with chest pain or post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without complications). Overall, arrhythmic events occurred in 37 % (n = 424) of patients, and they occurred in all classes. Eighteen percent (n = 59) of arrhythmic events occurred in Class III. Of all arrhythmias, 3 % (n = 14) were life threatening, and all of them occurring within Class I. Telemetry monitoring led to changes in clinical management in 22 % (n = 257) of patients due to clinical alarms, of which 71 % (n = 182) were related to medication management. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were appropriately monitored according to the AHA practice standards, meeting Class I and II. Arrhythmias occurred in all classes, but life-threatening arrhythmias only occurred in patients in Class I. However, a daily re-assessment of each patient's telemetry indication is warranted.