BACKGROUND: Globally, attendance at cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is between 15 and 30%. Alternative models of individualised care are recommended to promote participation in CR, however there has been no prospective testing of different durations of such models. We aimed to replicate the previously proven Choice of Health Options In prevention of Cardiovascular Events (CHOICE) intervention, and to determine if an extended version (CHOICEplus) would confer additional benefits.
METHODS: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) survivors not accessing centre-based CR (n=203) were randomised to CHOICE for 3 months (n=100) or CHOICEplus for 24 months (n=103) at four urban hospitals. The program comprised telephone-based tailored risk-factor reduction.
RESULTS: CHOICE and CHOICEplus were equivalent demographically and in risk profile at baseline. At 24 months, lipid profiles improved significantly and fewer patients had ≥3 risk factors above target compared to baseline in both groups. There were no significant differences between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The 24-month CHOICEplus program did not confer additional benefit above the brief 3-month CHOICE intervention. However, participation in either CHOICE and CHOICEplus significantly improved cardiovascular risk profile in ACS survivors. Importantly, the study was feasible, and the intervention translated readily across four hospitals. Overall, this study adds to the existing evidence for brief individualised approaches to CR.
BT - Heart Lung Circ C1 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29100841?dopt=Abstract DO - 10.1016/j.hlc.2017.09.016 J2 - Heart Lung Circ LA - eng N2 -BACKGROUND: Globally, attendance at cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is between 15 and 30%. Alternative models of individualised care are recommended to promote participation in CR, however there has been no prospective testing of different durations of such models. We aimed to replicate the previously proven Choice of Health Options In prevention of Cardiovascular Events (CHOICE) intervention, and to determine if an extended version (CHOICEplus) would confer additional benefits.
METHODS: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) survivors not accessing centre-based CR (n=203) were randomised to CHOICE for 3 months (n=100) or CHOICEplus for 24 months (n=103) at four urban hospitals. The program comprised telephone-based tailored risk-factor reduction.
RESULTS: CHOICE and CHOICEplus were equivalent demographically and in risk profile at baseline. At 24 months, lipid profiles improved significantly and fewer patients had ≥3 risk factors above target compared to baseline in both groups. There were no significant differences between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The 24-month CHOICEplus program did not confer additional benefit above the brief 3-month CHOICE intervention. However, participation in either CHOICE and CHOICEplus significantly improved cardiovascular risk profile in ACS survivors. Importantly, the study was feasible, and the intervention translated readily across four hospitals. Overall, this study adds to the existing evidence for brief individualised approaches to CR.
PY - 2017 T2 - Heart Lung Circ TI - Choice of Health Options in Prevention of Cardiovascular Events (CHOICE) Replication Study. SN - 1444-2892 ER -