Abstract 3544: One year follow-up after acute Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) - Immediate hospital discharge vs. cardiac rehabilitation

Circulation ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 116 (suppl_16) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schwaab ◽  
Annika Waldmann ◽  
Alexander Katalinic ◽  
Britta Poppe ◽  
Abdolhamid Sheikhzadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Absolute Risk Reduction ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Preventive Medication ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
One Year ◽  
The Impact

Background: The evidence of cardiac Rehab is not fully settled as meta-analysis mostly included studies without acute revascularisation and modern preventive medication. Method: In a multicentre randomised controlled trial, 1.474 patients (pts.) with acute CAD were included to investigate the impact of telemedicine on chronic CAD: 679 pts. were included immediately at discharge from the hospital (Hosp), 795 pts. after three week in-patient Rehab. All pts. had acute coronary angiography and were followed for one year. As Hosp pts. were included 11,3 ± 3 days (median 11) earlier than Rehab pts., events in the Hosp group were counted from day 12. Results: Rehab pts. were older (64 ±10 vs. 62 ±10 years; p<.001), had more congestive heart failure (64 vs. 40%, p<.001), renal insufficiency (10 vs. 7%, p=.036), hypercholesterolemia (79 vs. 74%, p=.023), and carotid stenosis (8 vs. 4%, p=.004). Telemedicine device prescription, gender, atrial fibrillation, peripheral artery disease, diabetes, hypertension, education and social status were similar in groups. After one year, Rehab pts. had more β-blockers (88 vs. 75%, p<.001), ACE-inhibitors (81 vs. 70%, p<.001), lower LDL-C (102 ±35 vs. 121 ±47 mg/dl, p<.001) and a higher proportion of non-smokers (62 vs. 56%, p=.024). There was no difference in platelet inhibition, anticoagulation and statin therapy (81 vs. 79%). The primary combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), coronary revascularisation and hospitalisation occurred in 32.6% of Rehab pts. and in 38.7% of Hosp pts. (p=.014; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.0615, relative risk reduction (RRR) 16%, number needed to treat (NNT) 17). AMI (1.8 vs. 3.8%, p=.015; ARR 0.0207, RRR 54%, NNT 49) was reduced. Revascularisation (4.2 vs. 5.4%), hospitalisation (33.6 vs. 38.0%) and all-cause mortality (2.1 vs. 2.4%) were similar between groups. After multivariate analysis, the primary endpoint was still significant: OR 0.716 (95% CI 0.575–0.892; p=0.003) giving a RRR of 28% in favour of Rehab therapy. Conclusion: Although Rehab pts. were sicker at entry, cardiac Rehab substantially reduced relevant clinical endpoints within one year. With a very low NNT, Rehab is highly effective and should be advised to all suitable patients with acute CAD.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: How Presentation of Recurrence Risk Influences Decision-Making

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (23) ◽  
pp. 4299-4305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celia Chao ◽  
Jamie L. Studts ◽  
Troy Abell ◽  
Terence Hadley ◽  
Lynne Roetzer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Relative Risk Reduction ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Absolute Risk Reduction ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
The Impact

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of four methods of communicating survival benefits on chemotherapy decisions. We hypothesized that the four methods of communicating mathematically equivalent risk information would lead to different chemotherapy decisions. Methods: Each participant received two hypothetical scenarios regarding their mother (a postmenopausal woman with an invasive, lymph node-negative, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer) and was asked to decide whether they would encourage their mother to take chemotherapy in addition to surgery and tamoxifen. In the part 1, participants received one of four methods of describing the chemotherapy survival benefit: (1) relative risk reduction, (2) absolute risk reduction, (3) absolute survival benefit, or (4) number needed to treat. In part 2, each participant received all four methods. Following each decision, participants were asked to rate their confidence and confusion regarding their decision. Results: Participants included 203 preclinical medical students. In part 1, participants who received relative risk reduction information were significantly more likely to endorse chemotherapy. In part 2, there were no treatment decision differences when participants received all four methods of communicating survival benefits of chemotherapy. However, receiving all four methods led to significantly higher ratings of confusion. In deciding on endorsing chemotherapy, participants understood the information best when presented with data in the absolute survival benefit format. Conclusion: These results support the hypothesis that the method used to present information about chemotherapy influences treatment decisions. Absolute survival benefit is the most easily understood method of conveying the information regarding benefit of treatment.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of blood pressure-lowering drug treatment by levels of absolute risk: post hoc analysis of the Australian National Blood Pressure Study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e017723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chau Le Bao Ho ◽  
Monique Breslin ◽  
Jenny Doust ◽  
Christopher M Reid ◽  
Mark R Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Drug Treatment ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Absolute Risk Reduction ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Absolute Benefit ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Pressure Lowering ◽  
Lowering Drug ◽  
Post Hoc

ObjectivesIn many current guidelines, blood pressure (BP)-lowering drug treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is based on absolute risk. However, in clinical practice, therapeutic decisions are often based on BP levels alone. We sought to investigate which approach was superior by conducting a post hoc analysis of the Australian National Blood Pressure (ANBP) cohort, a seminal study establishing the efficacy of BP lowering in ‘mild hypertensive’ persons.DesignA post hoc subgroup analysis of the ANBP trial results by baseline absolute risk tertile.Setting and participants3244 participants aged 35–69 years in a community-based randomised placebo controlled trial of blood pressure-lowering medication.InterventionsChlorothiazide500 mg versus placebo.Primary outcome measuresAll-cause mortality and non-fatal events (non-fatal CVD, congestive cardiac failure, renal failure, hypertensive retinopathy or encephalopathy).ResultsTreatment effects were assessed by HR, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat. Participants had an average 5-year CVD risk in the intermediate range (10.5±6.5) with moderately elevated BP (mean 159/103 mmHg) and were middle aged (52±8 years). In a subgroup analysis, the relative effects (HR) and absolute effects (absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat) did not statistically differ across the three risk groups except for the absolute benefit in all-cause mortality (p for heterogeneity=0.04). With respect to absolute benefit, drug treatment significantly reduced the number of events in the high-risk group regarding any event with a number needed to treat of 18 (10 to 64), death from any cause with 45 (25 to 196) and major CVD events with 23 (12 to 193).ConclusionOur analysis confirms that the benefit of treatment was substantial only in the high-risk tertile, reaffirming the rationale of treating elevated blood pressure in the setting of all risk factors rather than in isolation.

Abstract 02: Distribution Of Predicted Cardiovascular And All-cause Mortality Benefit Of Intensive Vs Standard Blood Pressure Control Among Us Adults Eligible For The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial

Hypertension ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 78 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine G Derington ◽  
Brandon Bellows ◽  
Gabriel S Tajeu ◽  
Jennifer S Herrick ◽  
Ransmond O Berchie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Racial Differences ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Absolute Risk Reduction ◽  
Pressure Control ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Health And Nutrition ◽  
Population Sizes ◽  
Event Rates

Introduction: If resources are scarce, achieving national SBP control goals will require prioritizing treatment among those likely to benefit. To identify patients with greatest predicted benefit with intensive SBP treatment and estimate population sizes, we applied algorithms to community samples who met the SPRINT enrollment criteria. Methods: The published algorithms separately predict the absolute risk reduction in CVD events and mortality at 3.26 years with intensive (<120 mm Hg) vs standard (<140 mm Hg) SBP lowering. We applied and calibrated the algorithms to SPRINT standard arm participants (n=4 399) and samples meeting SPRINT enrollment criteria from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, n=1 297) and the Reasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS, n=2 785). Predicted absolute risk reduction estimated number needed to treat (NNT), categorized as <50, 50-100, and ≥100. Observed 3.26 year CVD event (SPRINT, REGARDS) and mortality rates (all cohorts) were calculated. Results: The median ages were 67 (SPRINT), 69 (NHANES), and 72 (REGARDS). Greater proportions of NHANES and REGARDS vs SPRINT had predicted NNT <100 for CVD events (NHANES 94.8%, REGARDS 99.2%, SPRINT 87.8%) and mortality (NHANES 64.3%, REGARDS 63.7%, SPRINT 38.8%) ( Table ). Event rates were comparable within NNT groups. Conclusions: Predicted NNT distributions differ between cohorts but event rates are similar. Most adults who meet SPRINT enrollment criteria have predicted NNT <100 for CVD and mortality with intensive SBP treatment. These results suggest that published algorithms can identify those most likely to benefit and can guide implementation.

Monitoring Psychosis in General Practice: A Controlled Trial

1996 ◽  
Vol 169 (4) ◽  
pp. 475-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irwin Nazareth ◽  
Michael King ◽  
Sharon See Tai
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Absolute Risk Reduction ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Global Assessment Scale ◽  
Affective Psychosis ◽  
Practice Nurses

BackgroundThis trial evaluated the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a structured approach to the management of schizophrenia in general practice.MethodAll patients with non-affective psychosis (mainly schizophrenia) in four inner-city general practices were recruited. A check-list and a set of outcome measures were used by the general practitioner and the practice nurses. Information on attendances at the general practice and psychiatric out-patient departments was also collected.ResultsTwo practices took part in the intervention and two served as control practices. Sixty-seven patients with non-affective psychosis were identified. Thirty-three (81%) of the 41 patients in the two intervention practices attended the initial assessment by the doctor and nurse, but only 13 (32%) attended the first review assessment. The attendance for the second review, after six months, was six out of 15 (40%) in one practice, but rose to 16 out of 18 (89%) in the other practice. Significant improvements were recorded in the intervention group on the Global Assessment Scale (GAS) and the Behaviour, Speech and Other Syndromes (BSO) subscore of the Present State Examination (PSE). The absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction as a result of the intervention as measured by the GAS scores, was 29% (95% CI 4% to 54%) and 36% (95% CI 5% to 66%), respectively, and in the case of the BSO subscores of the PSE, this was 23% (95% CI – 1.8% to 47.2%) and 28% (95% CI – 2.2% to 57%), respectively. For one patient to show an improvement in GAS and BSO scores 3.5 patients (95% CI 1.85 to 25) and 4.3 patients (95% CI – 55 to 2.1), respectively, would need to receive the intervention. There was a significant increase in consultation rates for patients in the intervention practices.ConclusionsHealth surveillance of patients with non-affective psychosis is possible in general practice.

Nonvitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 589-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Ntaios ◽  
Vasileios Papavasileiou ◽  
Hans-Chris Diener ◽  
Konstantinos Makaritsis ◽  
Patrik Michel
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Relative Risk Reduction ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Absolute Risk Reduction ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Ischemic Attack

Background In a previous systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of nonvitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and stroke or transient ischemic attack. Since then, new information became available. Aim The aim of the present work was to update the results of the previous systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We searched PubMed until 24 August 2016 for randomized controlled trials using the following search items: “atrial fibrillation” and “anticoagulation” and “warfarin” and “previous stroke or transient ischemic attack.” Eligible studies had to be phase III trials in patients with atrial fibrillation comparing warfarin with nonvitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants currently on the market or with the intention to be brought to the market in North America or Europe. The outcomes assessed in the efficacy analysis included stroke or systemic embolism, stroke, ischemic or unknown stroke, disabling or fatal stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, cardiovascular death, death from any cause, and myocardial infarction. The outcomes assessed in the safety analysis included major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and major gastrointestinal bleeding. We performed fixed effects analyses on intention-to-treat basis. Results Among 183 potentially eligible articles, four were included in the meta-analysis. In 20,500 patients, compared to warfarin, nonvitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants were associated with a significant reduction of stroke/systemic embolism (relative risk reduction: 13.7%, absolute risk reduction: 0.78%, number needed to treat to prevent one event: 127), hemorrhagic stroke (relative risk reduction: 50.0%, absolute risk reduction: 0.63%, number needed to treat: 157), any stroke (relative risk reduction: 13.1%, absolute risk reduction: 0.7%, number needed to treat: 142), and intracranial hemorrhage (relative risk reduction: 46.1%, absolute risk reduction: 0.88%, number needed to treat: 113) over 1.8–2.8 years. Conclusions This updated meta-analysis in 20,500 atrial fibrillation patients with previous stroke or transient ischemic attack shows that compared to warfarin non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants are associated with a significant reduction of stroke, stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and intracranial bleeding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document