4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Medication Adherence in Patients Who Undergo Cardiac Transplantation

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
卷 45, 期 10, 页码 3662-3664

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2013.11.006

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Heart transplant patients are required to take medication for life, both immunosuppressants to prevent rejection and any required for other illnesses. Treatment compliance can be measured quantitatively or qualitatively. Compliance measurement is not easy owing to different factors. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of therapeutic compliance in heart transplant patients. Methods. We undertook a cross-sectional observational descriptive study. The sample comprised patients who received a heart transplant from 2001 to 2011. Of the 203 patients in total, we studied 99. We used the Morisky-Green test as an indirect method and recorded the immunosuppressant blood levels as a direct method. Results. The mean age of the patients was 50 +/- 12 years, and 84% were male. According to the Morisky-Green test, 33% of the patients were noncompliant, of whom 30% said they rarely forgot to take their medication. Patients took an average of 8 +/- 3 drugs per day, but only 85% knew what the drugs were for; 24% of the patients had grade 3A rejection, and 65% had graft vessel disease. Conclusions. Transplanted patients in this study showed a high level of therapeutic adherence that did not differ from other transplant series, either cardiac or other organs, nor from other chronic diseases. The results for defaulters were higher than that expected from these patients. The defaulter results were expected to be lower, given the information that the patients were supposed to have, both before and after the transplantation, and with the strict medical monitoring. Therefore, we have to stress therapeutic compliance, both medical and dietary-hygiene measures, and seek new strategies to improve the results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据