4.2 Article

Achieving Guideline-Driven High-Intensity Statin Dose in Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HCR.0000000000000332

关键词

cardiac rehabilitation; secondary prevention; statins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults recommends high-intensity statin therapy in patients aged <= 75 y with clinical coronary artery disease (CAD). The effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in lipid management and guideline adherence is unknown. The purpose of this study is to determine whether CR participation affects guideline-driven achievement for statin use. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study evaluated statin utilization in patients pre- and post-CR between January 1, 2014, and August 31, 2015. Records for patients with known CAD who completed 18 or more CR sessions were reviewed for statin-drug use and dose before and after CR and documented statin intolerance. Results: Of the total 468 patients, 76% were male with mean age SD = 66.0 +/- 10.8 y and range of 32 to 89 y. Patients aged <= 75 y (n = 375) showed a modest but statistically significant increase (P = .0006) in high-intensity statin use post-CR (56.3%-61.1%). Males demonstrated a significant increase in high-intensity statin use (P = .0005). Of the 146 patients aged <= 75 y not on high-intensity statins post-CR, only 21 had history of statin intolerance. Of the subjects aged >75 y (n = 93), 91% were already on high- or moderate-intensity statins with no significant change during CR. Conclusions: Patients aged <= 75 y following CR completion increased high-intensity statin use but only by 4.8% and 33% of subjects were inadequately treated. The updated 2013 treatment recommendations simplified statin use, yet substantial data continue to reveal that guideline achievement even post-CR remains limited.

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

4.2
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