A multicenter, randomized trial of a nurse-led, home-based intervention for optimal secondary cardiac prevention suggests some benefits for men but not for women : the Young at Heart Study
Date
2013
Authors
Carrington, M.
Chan, Y.
Calderone, A.
Scuffham, P.
Esterman, A.
Goldstein, S.
Stewart, S.
Editors
Advisors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Type:
Journal article
Citation
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 2013; 6(4):379-389
Statement of Responsibility
Melinda J. Carrington, Yih-Kai Chan, Alicia Calderone, Paul A. Scuffham, Adrian Esterman, Stan Goldstein, Simon Stewart (Young at Heart Investigators)
Conference Name
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the impact of a prolonged secondary prevention program on recurrent hospitalization in cardiac patients with private health insurance. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Young at Heart multicenter, randomized, controlled trial compared usual postdischarge care (UC) with nurse-led, home-based intervention (HBI). The primary end point was rate of all-cause hospital stay (31.5±7.5 months follow-up). In total, 602 patients (aged 70±10 years, 72% men) were randomized to UC (n=296) or HBI (n=306, 96% received ≥1 home visit). Overall, 42 patients (7.0%) died, and 492 patients (82%) accumulated 2397 all-cause hospitalizations associated with 10,258 hospital days costing >$17 million. There were minimal group differences (HBI versus UC) in the primary end point of all-cause hospital stay (5405 versus 4853 days; median [interquartile range], 0.08 [0.03-0.17] versus 0.07 [0.03-0.13]/patient per month). There were similar trends with respect to all hospitalizations (1197 versus 1200; P=0.802) and associated costs ($8.66 versus $8.58 million; P=0.375). At 2 years, however, more HBI versus UC (39% versus 27%; odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.41; P=0.007) patients were assessed as stable and optimally managed. For women, HBI outcomes were predominantly worse than UC outcomes. In men, HBI was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.99; P=0.044) with less cardiovascular hospitalizations (192 versus 269; P=0.054) and costs ($2.49 versus $3.53 million; P=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: HBI did not reduce recurrent all-cause hospitalization compared with UC in privately insured cardiac patients overall. However, it did convey some benefits in cardiac outcomes for men. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Unique Identifier: 12608000014358. URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?id=82509.
School/Discipline
Dissertation Note
Provenance
Description
Access Status
Rights
© 2013 American Heart Association, Inc.