4.4 Article

The Impact of Aversive Advice During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Smoking Cessation in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

Journal

GLOBAL HEART
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 253-257

Publisher

UBIQUITY PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gheart.2019.04.001

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Smoking cessation is important to prevent recurrence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but even in patients with ACS, smoking is hard to quit. Objectives: This study hypothesized that aversive advice during the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedure works effectively to promote smoking cessation in patients with ACS. Methods: This study was conducted as a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. A total of 66 patients were randomly assigned to an aversive advice group or a control group and instructed to visit the outpatient clinic 1, 4, and 24 weeks after discharge. In the aversive advice group, a physician who did not participate in the patient follow-up said the following 3 sentences to the patients during the PCI procedure: Smoking caused your chest pain; If you do not stop smoking right now, this pain will come again; and The next time you feel this pain you will probably die. All patients received usual advice on the importance of quitting smoking. Results: At 24 weeks after discharge, the smoking cessation rate was higher in the aversive advice group than in the control group. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, after adjustment for age, smoking quantity, alcohol consumption, and disease severity, the result was maintained (odds ratio = 4.47, 95% confidence interval: 1.50 to 13.34). Conclusions: Aversive advice during a PCI procedure is effective at smoking cessation in patients with ACS. A physician's attention and involvement during the PCI procedure improves the rate of smoking cessation in patients with ACS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available