4.5 Article

Regional Clinical Alliance Path and Cardiac Rehabilitation After Hospital Discharge for Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients in Japan - A Nationwide Survey

Journal

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
Volume 80, Issue 8, Pages 1750-1755

Publisher

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-15-1392

Keywords

Acute myocardial infarction; Cardiac rehabilitation; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Regional clinical alliance path

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan [20C-7]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The regional clinical alliance path (RCAP) after discharge from an acute-phase hospital is emerging as a tool for bridging acute-phase treatment and chronic-phase disease management. However, the optimal application of RCAP for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unknown in Japan, and therefore a nationwide survey of hospitals was conducted. Methods and Results: In 2009, questionnaires were sent to 1,240 cardiology training hospitals authorized by the Japanese Circulation Society. The response rate was 62.9% (780/1,240). Of the 780 responding hospitals, 708 treated AMI, and in these hospitals the number of AMI patients and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures performed were, respectively, 59 +/- 52 and 200 +/- 206 per year. The implementation rate of emergency PCI was high (91%), but that of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation (OPCR) was very low (18%). The implementation rate of RCAP after AMI was significantly lower (10%) than after stroke (57%). Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) was adopted as part of RCAP in only 19% (13/70) of currently operating RCAP programs. Conclusions: This first Japanese nationwide survey of RCAP after AMI showed that in contrast to the broad dissemination of acute-phase invasive treatment for AMI, there was infrequent implementation of OPCR, RCAP after AMI, and RCAP including CR. It will be necessary to broaden the use of RCAP after AMI, including OPCR.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available